The human brain is one of the most debatable tools. Using the grey matter for choosing the right path can never be forced upon a candidate. It is all about the candidate’s intention as to how do they utilise their knowledge in determining the course of achieving their goals. Consequently, it is always the employers and their company that pay for the wrong hire with deplorable intentions.

NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONS?

The verification started with an open desktop search about subject’s previous organisation. The concerned company was found on web portals. Subsequently, a call was placed on the telephone number as mentioned on the company letterhead. The call was connected to the company’s director who expressed his unavailability for few days, delaying the verification. Furthermore, he affirmed himself to be the sole verifier of the subject’s credentials.

In order to contact the director, a call was placed to the board line number mentioned on the company letterhead. The call was answered by the receptionist who requested the team to send an email to the director. The Stern team sent a primary email requesting the director for the subject’s verification. Further follow-up emails were sent but no response was received. In an endeavour to establish contact with him, the receptionist has contacted again who redirected the call to the director, thus, compelling the director to give in to the investigator’s attempts for truth. He confirmed the subject’s bona fide with no trace of negativity in the subject’s employment tenure. Simultaneously, the director contradicted his statement by remarking that the subject’s employment credentials are inaccurate as compared to the served responsibilities.

Since this statement of contradiction indicated a forged candidature, further cross-questions were not entertained by the director. Another source of verification as provided by the subject – her ex-supervisor was approached. When a call was placed to the ex-supervisor, he remarked that the subject was never under his supervision and was at a higher position in the organisational hierarchy.

Thereafter, multiple calls were placed to the verifier and the receptionist, neither of them provided the verification. Consequently, the director was telephoned from a corporate cellular number. The director responded saying that he is not bound to provide the team with any verification for he is not contract-bound. Subsequently, both the director and the receptionist were telephoned time and again, but no response was forthcoming.

Eventually, the team conducted a site visit. During which, the director refused to share any information. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the case was closed as an ambiguous one.

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

  • A telephonic conversation with the concerned verifier proves their authenticity.
  • Land line numbers should always be cross-checked for the authenticity of the verifier.
  • Site visits ensure the verifier’s authenticity
  • Always strike email conversation with the verifier for credibility
  • Email, telephonic and face-to-face communication could be analysed for a better understanding of the case
  • Unless the verifier provides substantial proofs for his statements of verification, a final conclusion should not be drawn