Typically, I do not provide hiring managers with employment applications. I only provide them with the resume and any other collateral used to make hiring decisions (i.e., questionnaires, writing samples, portfolios, etc.). I have a team of hiring managers who were used to doing their own recruitment so they always provided applicants with applications and background check authorization forms. Now that I handle their recruitment, they ALWAYS want the application and stress if I don't give it to them. The reason I don't like to is sometimes an application can contain info that my hiring managers may use against the candidate. This team was also notorious for asking inappropriate questions or engaging in inappropriate discussions that left us vulnerable. (We have handled that.)
To me, it is a best practice NOT to provide applications. I learned this to be a best practice when I first got into HR back in the 90's. However, I am looking to see what others do in their organizations. Thanks for the responses.
I'm pretty sure there is nothing on an application that would lead to discrimination, so I'm not sure what sort of information they would be looking for. Unless they are looking for handwriting samples, completeness of form, etc., I don't know what good it would do them.
Also, aren't background checks only allowed to be run AFTER you extend the offer? Not sure why they would be presented when you are presenting a candidate. I would suggest reviewing the company policy (if there is one) regarding submitting candidates. If there isn't a company policy, maybe work with the powers that be and create one? Consistency is key, so if you are an internal recruiter, I don't think you can change how you present candidates from manager to the next. It should be consistent.
I've never provided applications with resumes. What is the purpose of the recruiter if that's what the managers want to see?
For clarification, there was no one handling recruitment in a formal manner prior to 2012 so managers did a lot on their own, which included providing candidates with the application and background check authorization form. This is how hiring managers were getting this information.
We don't extend the offers until after we get the background check results. Company policy. Candidates are aware that an offer is forthcoming when I let them know we are moving forward with the background check.
Actually, the question about convictions can be of concern to managers, some of them get stuck on the salary history of a candidate when it comes to offers/negotiations, some get caught up in why someone left, etc.
I DO NOT want to provide this information to the managers. I agree, there is no reason for them to have it. It is really only a problem with one specific group. However, before I go up against certain powers that be, I want to be armed with a "best practices" defense which is why I posed the question.
It may be best to check with an employment attorney, in all honesty. EEOC regulations changed in 2012 and it's important to be compliant. If a client came to me with this question, I would respond exactly the same way! Good luck, Tiffany!
It sounds like that particular person(s) is the one with the issues, have you been able to discuss any of their reasoning with them? It does sound like there should now be a process outlined in the company since so many changes have occurred. Maybe they are having trouble adjusting to the changes - and that's where a company wide policy could help. From a personal experience, the company I worked for started using internal recruiters and it did seem like a nightmare for us hiring managers. Waiting weeks for approved reqs to be posted/opened in the system, weeks for phone interviews (and every other step of the process!) to get done, and a very unprofessional person doing those things. You seem very good at your job, but even when our division got a new recruiter a lot of people still had no trust in the position/person. I assume you receive the applications and check the basics (matches resume info, completed properly, etc.) before a candidate is even presented, and if they have no relevant and valid reasons why it would have benefitted them to have it then management should be able to put a policy in place.
As far as background checks, I'd check on that. In most states you can do them at any time, but there are some you can't.
As long as the HMs have sufficient info about the candidate (resume and other items you listed) I don't understand why they expect to have the employment application as well.
One concern I would have with HMs handling those docs - especially completed background check forms, is that those usually contain confidential personal identification information that really should be kept secure and only accessed if/when needed to process the background check. Even if that stuff isn't on or attached to the actual employment application, I would treat that form as an official (legal) record maintained by HR/recruiting.
@Kelly, because this is what they are used to from the old days. I've banned them from giving out apps/authorizations. It took a few "butt whippings" before they understood they were NOT to provide that info.
I'm just glad to know that I'm not crazy in my thinking. I can't remember a time where I ever gave the application to a manager.