How does an organization identify the best person for the job when filling a position? Companies generally follow a defined process for recruiting, hiring and promoting. They have a job description and certain criterion they are looking for. Whatever the process may be, it needs to be robust and legally defensible. The best method for achieving this is to use a formal assessment centre (AC). An assessment centre is “a process employing multiple techniques and multiple assessors to produce judgments regarding the extent to which a candidate displays selected competencies” (International Congress on Assessment Centre Methods).

Why should organizations use an assessment centre when hiring? The greatest advantages include:

• Fairness
• Legal defensibility
• Objectivity
• Ability to predict success in a particular role

There are a few disadvantages to using AC, time and cost being the two greatest. However, the time and cost of implementing an AC process is a small price to pay in return for minimizing legal liability and maximizing workforce competence. Having an effective hiring process can reduce turnaround and improve productivity.

The concept of assessment centres has been in existence for a long time and the first generally accepted industrial application was by AT&T in the 1950s. Since then industrial and organizational psychologists have put a great deal of time and effort into refining and advancing the AC processes.

If an employee fails to achieve the roles or tasks required of them, causes an incident (internal or external) or damages productivity, workplace morale or reputation, questions will be asked about how this individual was selected and hired. When this occurs, it is critical to be able to reach into the locked cabinet and bring out the selection file which demonstrates that a formal and well-researched process was used to hire said personnel.

In order to define a selection process as assessment centre it should meet the following criteria:

• The behaviours (dimensions) required for the job were identified using a formal job analysis
• More than one assessment technique has been used, including a simulation exercise (i.e., an exercise which is similar to a situation that may occur on the job)
• All assessment techniques are designed to provide information on the dimensions previously identified in the job analysis
• More than one trained assessor is used per candidate
• Assessors are trained to classify behavioural observations into meaningful and relevant categories (dimensions, competencies, KSAOs)
• All assessment tools adhere to a common set of standards, meaning each candidate is judged using the same criteria
• All dimensions are assessed at least twice, ideally using different techniques
• A systematic method of recording behavioural observations is used
• The data from all trained assessors and from all assessment techniques is pooled to create a final assessment

A panel interview can be part of an assessment centre, but on its’ own it is not. Similarly, creating “word pictures” of behaviours to be assessed by an individual manager does meet the formal definition of an assessment centre.

Organizations looking at recruiting, restructuring or promoting should protect themselves by using the formal AC process.

John Proctor
Integrated Human Risk Solutions

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

The ICCRC will also engage all stakeholders involved in immigration in order to develop new and innovative ways to protect the public, including newcomers to Canada from unauthorized providers of immigration services.

Immigration consultants and those currently members in good standing with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) can begin to register with the ICCRC. A 120-day transitional period is put in place to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of service for both CSIC members currently in good standing and their clients during the transition to the ICCRC. The transition period will end on October 28, 2011.

For more, read my latest post on Slaw.

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

The gap between men and women is still very significant when it comes to employees in the top ranks of the financial sector. That is, there are still very few women in senior executive roles at Canada’s financial institutions. Worse yet, there are currently no women in line for a chief executive officer position at a big bank.

Am I surprised? Not really. I have discussed this issue a few times: here, here and here.

So when I examine what has been going on in most industries these days, particularly the traditionally male-dominated industries, it does not surprise me one bit. It also does not surprise me when I see people in 2010 predicting that we may see women in these top executive roles in the next 20 years. But it is disheartening, as I did the same kind of predicting in 1990; I expected to see women in these roles in 20 years and it hasn’t happened, despite the numbers of women who became educated and qualified for these positions.

What worries me is that the current culture will remain in place because it has taken place for years and continues to be promoted within the male-dominated office culture. Women who have been shut out by the culture are no longer there to create change; they already left the environment for greener pastures. Unless we try to address the problem now, we will continue to make these kinds of empty predictions in 20 years.

Some say that women want a work-life balance so that means they cannot aspire to be in executive roles. But does it explain why women who are already in less senior executive positions are being overlooked when the banks look for and start recruiting CEOs?

Interestingly, it appears to be more common for women in the credit union sector to advance into more senior roles. Could it have something to do with the appointment process? Could differing methods of selection compared to the traditional appointment method by boards of directors generate different results?

What do you think?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image: thefourcornersclassroom.wikispaces.com

On June 26, 2010, CIC published proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, which would increase the personal net worth and investment amounts utilized by the IIP. Under the proposed regulations, the investment required under the IIP would increase from $400,000.00CAD to $800,000.00CAD. In addition, the personal net worth required to qualify under the IIP would increase from $800,000.00CAD to $1.6 Million CAD.

CIC also published Ministerial Instructions in the Canada Gazette, which established a moratorium on new IIP applications from June 26, 2010, until the date that the final regulations became effective. According to the Ministerial Instructions, no applications under the program were to be accepted unless they were post-marked or received by CIC before June 26, 2010. The stated purpose of the moratorium was to mitigate the growing surge in such applications under the lower investment and personal net worth levels.

According to CIC, a net worth of $800,000CAD in 1999 was considered substantial enough to attract applicants with the financial wherewithal and expertise to make a significant positive economic contribution to Canada. However, due to increasing global wealth, CIC believed that a net worth of $800,000 was now within easy reach of a modest property owner in a large city, who may not have other transferable resources as originally envisioned. In addition, CIC stated that most other countries with similar programs now required an investment closer to $1 Million CAD.

The new regulations, which were published on November 10, 2010, reinstate the IIP and implement the higher investment and net worth levels that were initially announced on June 26, 2010. As of December 1, 2010, applicants under the IIP are required to invest $800,000CAD and to establish a personal net worth of $1.6 Million CAD.

Henry J. Chang
Blaney McMurtry LLP

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Following the issuance of these Ministerial Instructions, CIC also revised its IMM 5612 Document Checklist, which is used for the initial filing of Federal Skilled Worker applications with the Central Intake Office (“CIO”). The language proficiency assessment was an expected addition to IMM 5612. However, what was not expected is the requirement that applicants also submit all documents listed on the specific visa office document checklist applicable to the consular post where the application will be processed.

Prior to this change, the CIO did not require supporting documentation with the initial filing. Instead, applicants submitted a simplified application consisting primarily of relevant forms and the filing fee, without any supporting documentation. Once the CIO had screened the application and forwarded the case to the consular post, the applicant would be expected to provide any relevant supporting documentation to the post directly.

Based on the current IMM 5612, the applicant must now submit a complete application, including all supporting documentation at the time of the initial filing with the CIO. This can cause considerable delays since documents such as police clearance certificates can take months to obtain from certain countries.

Another more serious question is whether the CIO will forward the supporting documents to the consular post after it has done the initial screening. Prior to this change, the CIO did not forward the application forms to the consular post. It simply entered information contained in the forms into CIC’s database. If all supporting documentation must now be filed initially with the CIO, it is uncertain whether these documents will now be forwarded to the consular post once CIO has screened the application.

The Canadian Bar Assocation National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section is attempting to seek clarification of this issue but the CIO has not yet responded.

Henry J. Chang
Blaney McMurtry LLP

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

CIC would initially accept the work permit application without the approved LMO. When it was ready to adjudicate the extension application (several months later), if the approved LMO was not included in the file, the work permit extension would be denied on that basis. However, if the LMO was approved in the interim, the employer could forward it to CIC before the adjudication of the work permit extension took place and the extension would be approved.

Concurrent filing permitted foreign nationals to benefit from implied status even if their existing work permits expired prior to the approval of their new LMOs. Assuming that the work permit extension application was filed prior to the expiration of the foreign national’s work permit, he or she would be entitled to implied status under Subsection 183(5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and could continue to work until the application was adjudicated.

However, in July 2010, CIC posted a notice on its website indicating that concurrent filing would no longer be permitted. The notice states the following:

“If you are applying for a work permit for a job that requires an LMO, you must now include the valid LMO with your application. We are no longer accepting work permit applications without valid LMOs.”

The implications of this notice are considerable. Given the fact that HRSDC is currently taking a strict approach to LMO applications, frequently requiring employers to repeat recruitment efforts in the case of minor irregularities, the inability of foreign nationals to acquire implied status while their LMO applications are pending could create significant gaps in their employment authorizations.

Henry J. Chang
Blaney McMurtry LLP

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com

I recently read an article I found quite interesting: as the competition for jobs increases during these tough economic times, many job applicants are tempted to bend the truth by embellishing or omitting information on their résumés.

It happens even more than I imagined. Apparently, recruitment firms and pre-screening companies estimate that one in three résumés raises a red flag (due to false statements, exaggerated claims or important omissions), and it has only become worse since the economy weakened in 2008.

This scenario leads to applicants getting hired and being unable to perform their jobs because they are not truly qualified for the job in the first place. What’s worse, the company could be harmed as a result of the employee’s actions during his or her time with the company.

The only way to deal with this problem is to select the proper applicant from the outset: it is critical to thoroughly check out applicants prior to hiring. The main areas that are vulnerable to “white lies” are:

• Education
• Experience
• Responsibilities
• Work dates
• Salaries

In terms of education, it is common for job applicants to be a course or two shy of a degree yet list the degree as completed to avoid having to explain the situation. Also, extra courses and professional affiliations may be inaccurate. Some might even list a fake university.

Concerning experience and responsibilities, some applicants exaggerate what they did at their last job. For instance, they might stretch the truth about how many employees they managed, or claim to have been a full manager when they were only an assistant manager.

Work dates are important to examine, as many applicants leave out portions of their work experience because they don’t know how to explain a termination, resignation or unsuccessful job search. Further, some may leave out the early portion of their careers because they don’t want to show their age.

Lastly, it is important to get an accurate idea of the applicant’s previous salary, as some may inflate the numbers so they can get a higher one from their next employer.

If we accept that at least 30 percent of résumés contain some type of inaccuracy, it is important to conduct a diligent search of the job applicant. Try the following strategies:

• Make sure that the interview process involves rigorous questioning to verify information on the résumé.
• Pay attention to the applicant’s body language. If it is negative, defensive or evasive, determine why.
• Don’t be afraid to use technology to check on a job applicant; for example, the Internet, including social networking and social media sites. However, be careful how you use the information you collected.
• Look for gaps in the applicant’s résumé. Explore whether there have been problems with past jobs or during the time between jobs.
• Check references and credentials to ensure that the résumé is truthful. Don’t be afraid to hire a fact-checker if you lack the time to do so.

Remember, once you identify a “white lie”, give the job applicant a chance to provide a more honest account of the situation before hastily rejecting him or her.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: http://www.worldofworklawblog.com

Upon first thought, employers may not be sure what to do when a prospective employer calls asking for a reference on a former employee.

Is it safe to provide a reference when a prospective employer is conducting a background check on your former employee?

Is it worth providing a negative reference given the privacy, defamation or discrimination issues that could arise? What if the former employer provides a “false positive” reference, and the prospective employer hires the person and later feels that it was harmed by the former employer’s failure to provide a truthful reference? Is it dangerous to not be completely truthful about a former violent or drug-addicted employee? Is it unfair to provide neutral information when a high-performing former employee might deserve a glowing reference?

With all these questions, it’s easy to see why employers might hesitate to provide a complete performance-based reference for a former employee, and may instead stick to providing neutral references discussing the former employee’s name, positions held and dates of employment.

Similarly, it’s not difficult to see why prospective employers might wonder about what to ask and what not to ask a former employer about a job candidate during a background check, and the issues that could arise from asking for certain kinds of information about the person.

I recently read a case where a prospective employee interviewed with an employer, and was offered a job conditional on his providing adequate references. The employer called the candidate’s former employer for a reference check and learned that the prospective employee had failed some drug tests and was terminated for this reason. Shortly thereafter, the employer called the candidate back to rescind the job offer because of the failed drug tests.

The prospective employee brought an application to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, arguing that he expected his former employer to provide information about his employment history and performance during the background check, but not the information about the drug tests. He felt that his former employer should not have provided this information since he had not signed any form that specifically authorized such a disclosure.

In this case, the Privacy Commissioner decided that the former employer could provide the information about the drug tests, and the prospective employer could receive this information, since the information was directly related to the candidate’s work history. Also, it was likely that the candidate had provided express consent to the prospective employer by signing an authorization form that allowed it to investigate his “employment and other related matters as may be necessary in arriving at a final decision” with respect to hiring him. The same authorization released previous employers from all liability in responding to inquiries and releasing information in connection with his application. Unfortunately, since the candidate was not hired, both employers discarded the forms.

The commissioner found neither employer liable in this case, but they took a chance by not keeping anything in writing.

Employers who are interested in providing performance-based references during a background check are recommended to:

• Provide information that is strictly job-related and based on reasonable evidence that is accurate and verifiable
• Respond only to the questions asked, and do not add extraneous information about the person
• Make sure that your answers relate directly to the former employee’s work history and performance (if drug test results or violent behaviour make up part of the individual’s work history and performance, the Privacy Commissioner has found that a former employer can reasonably disclose the information if asked about history and performance)
• Make sure to get a signed statement from departing employees that releases the employer from any liability for responding truthfully to questions asked during the course of giving references; explain that without the signed release, the company will provide neutral references only
• Ensure there is a particular person at the company who provides the references, who is trained and understands the importance of carefully handling reference inquiries
• Provide reference information only to prospective employers after verifying their identities, receiving their request in writing, and receiving the prospective employee’s consent to make the inquiry

On the same note, employers who are interested in requesting performance-based references during a background check are recommended to obtain a candidate’s express consent to ask his or her former employers about the applicant’s previous employment history and performance (put it right on the application form and keep copies of it), and to provide this consent to the former employer if requested.

I’m wondering: does your company have a neutral employment reference background check policy, providing only name, position held and dates of employment of former employees? Have you refused to provide a reference? Does your company use releases for parting employees limiting liability for future references provided?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: http://blog.ceesquare.com

I recently read an interesting blog post on Brand For Talent. The author, Libby Sartain, says that organizations across the globe are struggling with their reputations as employers. Those employers need to engage their workers as fans, while reaching out for new workers as the economy begins its turnaround. She also asks: is there a difference between corporate branding and employer branding? Well, according to Sartain, there is. While companies such as Apple and Nike are able to rely on the power and strength of their corporate brand to attract talent, this is not the case for companies with less powerful brands.

I found several definitions of employer branding, so let me give a general idea: “employer brand” can be defined as the image of your organization as a “great place to work” in the mind of current employees and key stakeholders in the external market (active and passive candidates, clients, customers and others). “Employer branding” is therefore concerned with the attraction, engagement and retention initiatives targeted at enhancing a company’s employer brand.

Why is it such a hot topic? And is this a real issue in Canada?

Well, it seems so. According to many recruiting websites in Canada, a positive and successful employer brand leads to greater retention and recruitment of top-notch employees and results in overall higher company productivity.

According to the study titled Taking the Pulse: Talent Branding, some 75 percent of HR leaders believe competition for talent is greater than it was five years ago. Looking ahead, 84 percent believe that competition will be greater in five years. Moreover, 55 percent of respondents consider it a priority to segment their message and their market. At the same time, while 97 percent say—to some extent—their organizations have developed employer brands, only 43 percent believe their corporate cultures support the employer brand—a key factor in worker engagement. Further, 65 percent believe the employer brand has been effective in engaging current employees, and 63 percent cite it as helpful in recruiting the right people to the organization.

Australian brand management strategists, The Right Group say, “Over the last five years, the concept of Employer Branding has gained traction as a necessary requirement for the attraction, engagement and retention of talented employees.” And “In today’s business climate, employer branding is no longer a short-term project initiated by HR to aid attraction and recruitment; it is now a way of life for successful organisations. … The role of employer branding is to provide a coherent framework and focus the priorities of an organisation’s people strategy.”

Other factors have played up the notion of employer branding, such as yearly “Employer of Choice” awards in various countries including Canada. With the results of these competitions highly publicized in the media as well as HR publications, it’s clear that the concept of employers as brands is a hot topic.

To illustrate, in Canada you have the “50 Best Employers in Canada”, “Top 100 Employers (Canada)”, “Great Places to Work Canada”, “Canada’s Best Diversity Employers”, and “Human Capital Leaders” (Canada), among others. And once a company wins one of these awards, they display it on their corporate website, or send out a press release announcing how proud they are to have won a variety of awards from publications and associations from around the world.

How do you achieve positive employee branding?

According to BCjobs.ca, “It’s about becoming the Tide or Crest or Coke of employment. Example—you’re out of detergent. You go to the store and stare at hundreds of options, but one pulls at you on an emotional level. The good, tried, tested, and true, the one mom used, the logo and colours jump out at you…price isn’t an issue because you have faith in it—you reach up and choose the familiar, the trusted. That’s what good advertising is all about—creating an emotional connection and assuring loyalty.”

Taking the Apple and Nike example from Brand For Talent, “The big idea behind the design and innovation at Apple and the empowerment at Nike radiates through the organization, and both organizations have been able to attract, engage, and retain top talent through their master brand strength. Both Apple and Nike, however have cultures that support their brand promises and convey to workers what they must do to deliver on the promise. The ‘big idea’ behind the brand engages workers and consumers alike.”

What I can conclude is that the employer brand has to fit the corporate brand. One cannot exist without the other.

If a company doesn’t explicitly create an employer brand, then its corporate brand will stand in for the employer brand. However, that corporate brand has to be so strong that it encompasses everything in everybody’s mind. This means that just having a corporate brand might not always be appropriate when it comes to the goals of retention, engagement, recruitment, and whatever else; so it’s important that companies recognize that fact, think about how others—be they customers or current or prospective employees—experience their brand, and then decide if they have to develop an employer brand distinct from their corporate brand.

There are steps to determine the parameters of a distinctive employment brand: it’s necessary to undergo a comprehensive evaluation process. This includes having a corporate brand, identifying what factors impact your employer brand, analyzing previous results, setting goals, defining a possible employment brand, substantiating the employment brand proposition and, possibly, conducting a focus group.

Successful employee branding depends on an organization’s employees to project the overall brand. By recruiting selectively, communicating effectively and delivering targeted training, you can better develop employee branding. Once your employees understand your brand and objectives—and buy in—they’ll be in a better position to act as ambassadors for your brand.

In addition, understanding that it’s the job of the whole HR department to market your company as a top employer is crucial. Just like a marketing department, all HR professionals, from recruitment to management, are in charge of ensuring the employer brand is relevant, unique to you, consistent, understood, and promoted by the whole company, particularly the front line, when it comes to recruitment.

The Right Group warns, and this is very important, that a primary issue is that many organizations fail to link their external employer brand communication messages with their internal employment experience, rendering their employer brand “inauthentic”.

This reminds me: your company’s stand on compliance, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility will directly reflect who and what your organization is; and your customers and employees recognize this, which makes it an important part of your employer branding. Furthermore, making sure your organization complies with its legal obligations, communicates and protects its employees’ rights under the law, and avoids unnecessary employment lawsuits will help you maintain an untarnished reputation.

Remember, the actions and activities of organizations are becoming more visible due to the increasing number of people joining and posting comments on social and business networks such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Employees and job applicants will continue ranking companies based on a higher level of internal insight into the company gained through discussions on online communities. As a result, businesses that promote ethical, responsible practices and good employment relationships will, in the long term, continue to feature high on the “best places to work” lists, and these lists will become a more reliable source as an indication of a “best place to work”.

Do you have an employer brand? How did you find it? And, did you really need it?

Yosie Saint-Cyr, Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2009 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: www.expertbusinesssource.com/

Here’s a question about an issue that is becoming increasingly relevant:

By using social networking sites—such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn—to search for and recruit employees, are employers discriminating against groups that are less likely to use those services?

It might sound like a strange problem, but a quick Internet search of the terms “social media recruiting discrimination” leads to many pages of results discussing the legal implications of recruiting via the social web. A recent article in U.S. human resources magazine, Workforce Management, quotes Jessica Roe, A Minneapolis lawyer:

“Networking sites, including Twitter, exclude whole populations. … We are going to end up with a very homogeneous workforce. The social networks represent limited social groups and very small labor pools. It’s an enormous issue.”

The article’s author, Fay Hansen, goes on to point out that, “According to the latest data from Quantcast, only 5 percent of LinkedIn users are black and only 2 percent are Hispanic.”

Her point being that employers who advertise through such media are neglecting their duty under human rights legislation to open hiring to as diverse a population as possible.

The Canadian Human Rights Act states clearly:

It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But that’s not the only issue. Some lawyers and commentators claim that employers might also get into trouble for taking a peek at candidates’ social networking profiles or typing their names into a search engine as part of their background checks. For one, even a cursory glance at a person’s Facebook public profile could give the employer more information than it would otherwise have access to, prior to an interview. This includes the candidate’s gender and race, and possibly her or his age and religion. Human rights law prohibits employers from making hiring choices based on any of these criteria (except in very specific cases), but it also prevents employers from building candidate lists based on these criteria (and others).

And then there’s the question of the accuracy of information one finds on the Internet. What if an employer makes a decision not to hire a candidate based on erroneous information the employer uncovers? Obviously that spells “Trouble”.

A recent article from HRVoice.org, the online magazine of the British Columbia Human Resources Management Association, quotes Steve Williams, director of research at the Society for Human Resource Management:

“HR tells hiring managers that if you use social networking sites, you must verify the information to avoid liability. … Misuse can lead to infringement of privacy or unintentional discrimination.”

John Rossheim, the author continues: “If, for example, you allow information gleaned online about an applicant’s age or marital status to affect a hiring decision, you could invite a lawsuit.”

It seems to me that there is little difference between Internet networking and the sort of informal word-of-mouth networking that many people claim leads to most interviews and hiring—only that the word spreads farther and faster. But I’m sure many others feel differently. How about you and your company?

For more information, take a look at this FAQ list from McCarthy Tétrault on HRinfodesk: Social Media Sites and Privacy at Work

Adam Gorley
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2009 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | 3 comments |