One of the really interesting things to me about background checks is what services people use and why they choose to screen certain employees in certain ways.

Just for a quick example, a former employer of mine used to screen everyone exactly the same no matter what the position entailed. So a financial controller gets the same level of scrutiny as our janitor. The amount of background checks some lower level staff went through was excrutiating to them. The janitor candidates would shake their heads at the amount they would have to go through. We lost many others because of past credit problems as well.

Meanwhile, executives who had been subject to incredible scrutiny before by other companies questioned the lax technique. They wondered why they weren’t getting scrutinized more.  They worried that perhaps their peers hadn’t been scrutinized enough and that the company was allowing itself too much risk.

When I asked a higher up about this policy, they felt it was the easiest way to be consistent and secure. They felt like everyone in our company could be exposed to secure information and that they wanted to try to ensure that there would as much security as possible. They also said it made it easier to make a move as an employee to a different (more sensitive area) and caused less embarassment in case a credit check came up bad when moved to the finance department.

Ultimately, I found this one size fit all approach to be really problematic as an HR professional for several reasons:

1. Unnecessary - Sure, everyone in the company might have some level of access to information but most vary quite a bit. In my experience, it is best to set up different classes of employees so that you consistently treat people in each department differently. This can also be a time and cost savings.
2. More than necessary - With higher level positions, you may want to take extra steps to determine their background. A one size fit all profile doesn’t work.
3. Negative recruitment impact - Having a background check usually impacts recruiting (but in a good way). Being too open with your background check can allow too many candidates that should be disqualified due to their background. Having too comprehensive of a check can eliminate otherwise qualified candidates.
4. Possible legal consequences - Too harsh of a background check? Too lax of a background check? There could be possible legal ramifications for both.

So what are you to do? How do you find the right fit for your organization?

For one, the background check vendor you use should be able to help you get started with what is typical for your industry and position. They can also help you figure out what would be best for your organization and customize a solution for you. I also always try to check to make sure with legal council whether or not the process seems to be in compliance with laws. Those two things can be a lot better than a one size fit all system.