One reason might be that the moment we give people responsibility for our well being (and our money!) we expect a different set of behaviours: we have as voters elected or as shareholders bought into a contract that has an implicit 'trust' clause in it. Take the historic position in France for example in which the public would be surprised if their political class were not cheating on their wives or partners. Is the cultural acceptance of lying a reason why organisations take a relatively soft approach to its detection in the workplace or during pre-employment processes? According to Experian, 71% of applicants lie on their CVs and 50% have to reverse job offers made. Why then is there so little relative investment in appointment processes, given the risk associated with making the wrong decision? Cost, time, awareness or lack of process or tools to sort it out before problems arise or mistakes made? Interestingly, the issue isn't just about organisational risk, making the wrong selection can put the individual's health, safety and well-being at risk too.
Looking at the direct financial cost associated with the process itself; according to the CIPD, the cost of a director-level appointment is about £8000, the current maximum payout for unfair dismissal £74,500. The indirect cost of making the wrong decision is far more and perhaps unquantifiable in relation to reputational damage and disruption. These are factors to take into account in any Appointment Process, Risk Assessment or HR Policy Development.
If in doubt, seek professional advice and support for any appointment process and consider the tools available to address the risk, including psychometric and polygraph testing where appropriate alongside the more widely used processes already in place. Prevention is always better than cure or, considered alternatively, shutting the stable door before the proverbial horse has bolted.
