Sure, a candidate looks great on paper. They may even rock their interviews with perfect answers. But are they hiding something that could pose a risk to your organization?
Background checks uncover potential issues that may impact a person’s job worthiness. However, it can be challenging to distinguish between minor inconsistencies and true red flags. Knowing when a candidate is being a bit “naughty” versus when they’re a real risk is crucial. Let’s break down some common background check red flags and discuss how to handle them.
Problem: Discrepancies in Employment Dates
A 2023 survey by ResumeLab found that 37% of people lied about the length of time they were employed at a job.
Employment date discrepancies may occur because of simple oversights like a candidate misremembering exact dates. They could also be attempts to hide something intentionally (like a job gap or employment that ended badly). These red flags need further clarification and careful verification.
Solution: When dates don’t match, ask the candidate to clarify. A conversation can often resolve minor discrepancies. Order an employment verification to nail down accurate start-and-end dates with previous employers.
Problem: Negative Professional References
Negative references may indicate potential issues with a candidate’s work performance, attitude, or professionalism. While most candidates will provide references from people likely to speak positively about them, it’s still possible to encounter less-than-favorable feedback. This could stem from legitimate challenges the candidate faced in previous roles, personality conflicts, or even isolated incidents. However, repeated patterns of negative feedback are red flags.
Solution: Negative references are concerning but should be interpreted in context. Verify the feedback by conducting multiple reference checks, ideally from a diverse set of past employers or colleagues. If the feedback consistently reflects poor performance or behavioral issues, it’s a bonafide red flag. Partner with a third-party background screening company that uses structured reference-checking questions to ensure reliable and objective feedback.
Problem: Poor Credit
A poor credit history can raise concerns about a candidate’s financial responsibility, particularly if the role involves handling money or sensitive financial information. Financial mismanagement may suggest a risk when you’re hiring for positions that require trustworthiness, like accounting, banking, or roles with budget oversight. However poor credit doesn’t always reflect a person’s work ethic or professional capabilities, especially in non-financial roles. Economic hardships, medical expenses, or unexpected life events can affect a person’s credit without necessarily impacting their job performance.
Solution: Assess whether credit history is relevant to the role. If it is, carefully review the candidate's credit details to determine if the issues stem from one-time events or reflect a pattern. Talking to the candidate about your credit concerns can provide context.
Problem: Unverifiable Diploma or Degree
Benign education verification issues might occur if the candidate attended an institution that has since closed, or if there was a genuine oversight in the records. However, candidates may exaggerate or misrepresent their credentials to meet job requirements. Without proper verification, an employer risks hiring someone without the necessary training or expertise for the position.
Solution: Use a background screening company that will vigorously attempt to verify the applicant’s claims. If a candidate’s diploma can’t be verified, request additional proof, like official transcripts or notarized documents. Consider unverifiable credentials in your final hiring decision for positions that rely heavily on specific training.
Problem: Inconclusive Drug Test Results
Inconclusive drug test results often occur because of sample dilution or other irregularities. This can suggest the candidate may have attempted to mask substance use. However, inconclusive results don’t definitively indicate drug use. They may be caused by legitimate factors like excessive hydration. When this happens, it creates a challenge for hiring managers.
Solution: Notify the candidate about the inconclusive result and offer a retest if possible. An HR policy that allows one retest can accommodate situations like these without unfairly penalizing the candidate. However, repeated inconclusive results can be an even bigger red flag, possibly pointing to tampering.
Problem: Social Media Red Flags
Social media screening can uncover insights into a candidate’s character and behavior that indicate poor judgment, unprofessional behavior, or even discriminatory attitudes. While such information can be valuable, you need to handle it cautiously to avoid privacy invasion and comply with fair hiring practices.
Solution: When you’re evaluating social media content, look for public posts that may reflect toxic behavior, like hate speech or evidence of illegal activity. In addition, customize your search with targeted high-risk activity keywords.
If, for example, you’re hiring at an animal shelter, using keywords like “inhumane behavior towards animals” would help uncover risky behavior or attitudes.
Focus only on information directly relevant to the job performance and your company’s culture. Social media screening provided by an experienced background screening provider can help you build and maintain a compliant, fair process.
Problem: Criminal Record Discrepancies
Ever had a candidate’s reported criminal history that doesn’t align with official records? This can raise concerns. It could be due to honest misunderstandings, or may not even be their record (because of common names, etc). The issue could also have been deliberately omitted or misrepresented.
Solution: Unreported convictions can be major red flags depending on the role. Before the background check, explain the company’s policies on criminal records and how it affects hiring decisions to the candidate.
Always order criminal records searches through a reputable third-party background screener who will closely check every piece of information before reporting back to you. Allow the candidate to clarify any unreported criminal history.
Red flags in background checks must be taken seriously but shouldn’t always spell the end for a candidate. HR can use individualized assessments (How long ago did the candidate committed the crime? How severe was the crime? It the crime relevant to the job they’re applying for?) to measure how much weight to put on the red flag.
Identifying, assessing, and addressing these issues within the right context and fairness helps organizations confidently distinguish between honest mistakes and genuine concerns.
