Hiring teams are confronting a growing gap between how convincingly candidates present themselves and how confidently employers can establish their suitability. A resume can be tailored to mirror a job description. Interview responses can be generated in real time. The individual demonstrating expertise on screen may not even be the person who eventually joins.
These developments put pressure on a familiar hiring model: assess the candidate, make an offer and conduct background verification towards the end. By that stage, organisations may already have invested considerable time, committed to a joining date and planned a client deployment.
The webinar, “Beyond Compliance: Building Trust into Hiring Workflows”, held in partnership with OnGrid, examined how organisations can strengthen verification across recruitment. Moderated by Jerry Moses, the discussion featured Tina Rastogi, Global Head Human Resource, Cybage Software, and Piyush Peshwani, Co-founder & CEO, OnGrid & eLockr.
The Perfect-Match Paradox
AI is changing both sides of recruitment. Candidates can use it to translate their experience into polished applications, while employers use automated systems to identify profiles that match role requirements. When both processes optimize for the same language, a strong match can become harder to distinguish from a carefully constructed claim.
The concern is not simply that candidates use AI. It is that screening systems may struggle to separate better presentation from invented experience or exaggerated capability. A convincing application can progress through recruitment without providing sufficient evidence that the candidate can perform the work.
“I can become anything,” said Piyush Peshwani, describing how AI can produce resumes aligned with very different roles. “Interviewing introduces another layer of uncertainty. Candidates may use AI-generated answers, receive undisclosed assistance or arrange for someone else to represent them.”
The consequences extend beyond a poor hire. Genuine applicants can also be crowded out by profiles that perform better against automated screening criteria.
The underlying challenge is establishing “the right individual, the right capability”, as Tina Rastogi put it. “That requires consistency across the recruitment journey. Initial screening, technical assessments and subsequent interviews should build a coherent picture of the candidate. Multiple interactions can help establish whether claimed expertise holds up under different questions and whether the person remains consistent across stages.”
Technology can support this process, but the quality of assessment design and interviewer capability remains central.
The checks between stages
Background verification is often treated as a single milestone. Yet the checks within it differ in purpose, turnaround time and relevance. Identity verification, education records, employment history and criminal-record checks do not necessarily need to begin together or conclude at the same point.
An audience poll during the webinar indicated that approximately 60% of respondents conducted background verification after an offer was accepted. The discussion pointed towards a phased approach that brings selected checks forward.
“Background verification is a sum of checks,” said Piyush Peshwani. “That distinction creates room to sequence verification more intelligently. Fast digital checks can help establish basic information before an offer. Checks requiring external responses can continue between offer acceptance and joining. Current-employment verification requires particular care because premature contact with an existing employer can create difficulties for the candidate,” he added.
The right sequence depends on the role, industry and responsibilities involved. A position involving sensitive client information may require different safeguards from one with limited access. Seniority, geography and contractual commitments can also shape the scope.
“It is not necessary to do all checks for everyone,” said Tina Rastogi. “This approach also offers a more practical response to urgent hiring. Compressed timelines should prompt clarity about which checks are critical before joining and which can proceed in parallel under defined controls.”
Identity, eligibility to work and requirements essential to the role were identified as priorities. Any outstanding checks need clear completion timelines, communicated conditions and a process for responding to adverse findings.
The same underlying framework can extend to contractors, consultants and gig workers, with the checks adjusted to their responsibilities.
Moonlighting: When verification cannot stop at onboarding
Remote and hybrid work have made undisclosed simultaneous employment a persistent challenge for organisations. While moonlighting has declined since the pandemic, overlapping employment remains a concern, particularly in industries where employees handle sensitive client information or are bound by contractual obligations.
Piyush Peshwani highlighted instances where employment records revealed individuals working for three or four organisations simultaneously. Unlike legitimate secondary work, such arrangements can raise questions about conflicting commitments, confidentiality and contractual compliance.
The challenge is that traditional background verification captures employment history at a particular point in time. It cannot necessarily identify changes that occur months or years after joining.
This calls for a more selective approach to ongoing verification. Rather than conducting repeated checks across the workforce, organisations can identify roles and business functions where undisclosed employment presents a material risk.
Tina Rastogi explained that periodic checks need to be linked to specific business requirements. “For us, it is not done for everybody,” she said, highlighting how certain business lines and client contracts require additional verification under clearly defined standard operating procedures.
Beyond employment records, organisations may also examine patterns in working hours, availability and productivity to identify potential concerns. However, these indicators require contextual assessment rather than automatic conclusions.
The critical distinction is between continuous verification and continuous surveillance. Employees need clarity on what is being checked, why it matters and when additional verification may occur. Advance notification, documented policies and opportunities to explain discrepancies are essential.
Ultimately, trust cannot be treated as a one-time hiring decision. For higher-risk roles, it requires proportionate safeguards throughout employment, without turning every employee into a potential suspect.
The candidate’s side of trust
Verification is also an encounter with the employer’s culture. Candidates experience the organisation through its communication, document requests, digital systems and handling of personal information. A process designed to establish trust can undermine it if it feels opaque or unnecessarily intrusive.
Clarity should begin early. Candidates need to understand the hiring stages, the information required at each point and the reason for collecting it. Explaining requirements upfront helps prevent routine checks from being interpreted as suspicion directed at an individual.
“Consent cannot be hidden behind terms and conditions,” said Piyush Peshwani. The discussion emphasised explicit communication about the purpose of verification, limiting collection to necessary information and explaining how candidates can withdraw consent. These principles make the process more understandable while encouraging organisations to examine whether every requested data point serves a defined purpose.
Repetition is another source of friction. Candidates may be asked for the same documents during offer processing, onboarding and later client deployment. Disconnected workflows turn verification into an administrative burden for both the individual and the HR team.
“Verify what actually matters. Digital workflows and reusable, verifiable credentials can reduce repeated requests. Employment credentials issued by a former employer, for example, can allow a candidate to authorise verification without depending entirely on successive email exchanges,” said Tina Rastogi,
International hiring adds complexity. A consistent organisational framework needs to accommodate country-specific records, regulations and consent requirements. The candidate should still receive a clear explanation of what applies to their circumstances. Trust grows when verification feels predictable, proportionate and easy to navigate.
The story behind the flag
A red flag can identify a discrepancy without explaining its meaning. Differences in employment dates, job titles or documentation may reflect deliberate misrepresentation, but they can also arise from genuine errors or circumstances requiring clarification.
Treating every discrepancy as an automatic rejection risks excluding suitable candidates. Leaving decisions entirely to individual discretion creates a different problem: inconsistent treatment.
The starting point is to recognise that a flag is an input to investigation. As Tina Rastogi said, “That’s not a verdict. A structured review should establish the nature of the discrepancy, communicate it to the candidate and provide time for an explanation. Supporting evidence can then be assessed against defined severity levels and decision criteria.”
Employment gaps illustrate the need for context. A candidate may have taken time away to study, travel or pursue an interest. That explanation requires a different assessment from a situation in which records reveal undisclosed employment during the same period.
“You have to triangulate all these data points and take decisions,” said Piyush Peshwani. “Technology can expose inconsistencies between resumes, interviews and records. Human reviewers must examine the explanation, assess its significance and apply policy fairly,” he added.
For hiring leaders, the practical task is to connect these elements: evidence of capability, appropriately timed checks, transparent communication and consistent review. Trust becomes stronger when verification informs decisions throughout recruitment and candidates have a fair opportunity to explain what the records alone cannot.
Watch the complete conversation here:
