Why don't we screen for risk (yet)?
DANTES employs psychologists who support organisations where there is or has been misconduct or socially unsafe situations. We often hear in such cases, ‘In hindsight, there were signs.’ Or: ‘He or she seemed so capable.’ Or: ‘Employees who hired him at the time now say they didn't have a good feeling about him even then’.
What is striking: when appointing executives or people for critical positions, past hard facts are often screened - think integrity checks, checks for criminal offences, financial reliability or fraud. These so-called background checks have now become standard in many sectors.
But rarely are personality traits or behavioural risks considered. And that is striking, because we know from years of scientific studies that certain emotional characteristics, or personality traits and/or combinations of those traits are indicative of future behavioural problems. Psychology is clear on this. Then there are those who have distinct personality disorders: narcissistic disorder and psychopathy. Psychologists agree on this too; the risk of all kinds of problematic behaviour in the workplace is clearly increased.
We wrote about this earlier, concluding that psychopathy and narcissism are not uncommon in senior positions, where charisma, ambition and persuasiveness seem to be a plus - but can mask underlying risky behaviour.
So why does behavioural risk screening still happen so seldom?
When we ask security staff, HR colleagues, auditors and compliance managers at companies, we hear different explanations:
Taboo and discomfort. For some, psychological testing feels too ‘personal’ or an invasion of privacy.
There is no money for that. However, the cost of harm to such a person exceeds the cost of psychological screening.
Lack of knowledge. Not every organisation knows that there are reliable and valid tools available to identify risky behaviour.
Pressure to fill positions quickly. Especially in scarcity or strategic positions, screening can be perceived as slowing down - or as a risk of turning down an appointment.
Preferential selection from the network. Candidates from one's own circle are sometimes seen as ‘automatically’ trustworthy, which can hinder critical scrutiny.
Reliance on CV and interview. Someone who comes across well in an interview and has an impressive career is quickly seen as ‘safe’
There is now sufficient knowledge about psychological risk profiles, as well as sound, valid and reliable psychological screening instruments that have been developed over the years. These can identify personality traits and thus potential risk.
The expertise to assess potential risk posed by a person in a particular job in a particular work environment is available. Not to disqualify, but to understand how someone will react under certain situations, e.g. what behavioural changes do we see when the person is under pressure, or criticised for their performance, or faces loss in their life. What someone brings in behaviour and dynamics is the question, and where are the risks for the organisation.
Behavioural screening as a form of prevention
We increasingly talk about social safety and psychological safety in organisations. About the importance of a culture where employees feel safe, free to speak out and protected from serious transgressive behaviour. Also in addition, we want to prevent fraud and other forms of financial crime.
If we are serious about this, it starts with who we appoint to key positions. Preventive screening for behaviour and personality traits is then not a luxury, but a way to spot risks at the front door - before they become reality.
For special or sensitive positions, organisations could consider expanding the standard ‘pre-employment screening’ to include such a psychological test, consisting of several interviews and a comprehensive, validated personality questionnaire. A screening aimed at identifying potential risks.
The outcome of such a screening certainly does not have to lead to a decision on whether to hire the person or not, but the insight into the new employee's behaviour can certainly contribute to a risk management plan; a strategy aimed at protecting both the new employee and the people around him, and at preventing unwanted incidents.
Because good leadership starts with self-knowledge and with the courage to investigate even that which you do not (yet) see.
At DANTES, we like to plan along with you about how you can deal with leadership and risk more preventively as an organisation. See also our webpage on what we can contribute to psychological screening of employees: Integrity screening – DANTES
What do you think? Should behavioural screening become a natural step upon appointment to a critical or leadership role? Or is that going too far? We'd love to hear your response.
Inge Nijenhuis
#screening #psychologie #leiderschap #risicomanagement #socialeveiligheid #HR #organisatiepsychologie #Dantes