TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/012389/01238900.021

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 5KB | 84 lines

BUSINESS, Page 44

Honestly, Can We Trust You?

Barred from using polygraphs, employers seek an integrity test


    Each year U.S. businesses lose as much as $40 billion to
employees who steal. To protect their profit margins, many hard-hit
companies have resorted to routine polygraph screening of workers
and job applicants. But the scientific validity of these devices
has never been proved, and the tests have sometimes caused harm to
people who are falsely implicated. Such is the case of Shama
Holleman, a college student who took a job in 1987 as a part-time
cashier for Alexander's department-store chain in New York City.
After a month as a model employee, she was fired because a
polygraph test indicated that she might be a drug dealer and might
have served a prison sentence. Neither was true. Holleman sued
Alexander's, and they reached an out-of-court settlement.

    In response to incidents like this, Congress has banned
employers' use of polygraph tests, voice-stress analysis and other
electronic methods to screen current or prospective workers. The
law, which went into effect Dec. 27, exempts government agencies
and such workers as armored-car guards and employees who have
access to restricted drugs.

    The prohibition is a huge setback for the polygraph industry,
which is expected to lose about 85% of its $100 million in annual
revenues. But the new law is a boon for firms that offer two other
character tests: pencil-and-paper quizzes and graphology, or
handwriting analysis. Says Eric Zorn, senior vice president of the
Jamesway discount-store chain: "I'm very unhappy about the new law,
but I'm thankful we can still use written tests."

    The honesty exams, which were given to 3.5 million job
applicants last year at a cost of $5 to $15 each, can be
surprisingly straightforward. A questionnaire published by Reid
Psychological Systems of Chicago asks test takers to mark whether
or not they recently "overcharged a customer for personal gain" or
"took something from a store without paying for it." Many job
applicants freely reveal their transgressions. "People put things
on written tests they wouldn't tell their mothers," says Larry
Audler, vice president of personnel for the New Orleans-based D.H.
Holmes department-store chain.

    The written surveys usually include a few ringers (example: "Do
you always tell the truth?") to determine whether a  job seeker is
being candid. No single answer brands a person as a liar or thief,
but those who administer the test watch for ominous patterns.
Observes Arthur Le Blanc, a California psychologist who helped
screen new employees hired for the 1984 Olympic Games in Los
Angeles: "If you score in a certain range, you're more likely to
be dishonest."

    For $100 to $500 per employee, handwriting analysts will assess
at least 20 different cursive characteristics and advise the
prospective employer about the chances of a person's being a future
embezzler or goldbrick. Ruth Brayer, president of Graphological
Services International of New York, sees signs of dishonesty in
illegible handwriting and retraced lines.  Brayer, who counts
Citibank among her clients, also hears warning bells "when a
signature looks different from the rest of a person's handwriting."

    Yet the exams and handwriting tests have a wide margin for
error, which means that some people are inaccurately labeled as
dishonest. James Walls, co-founder and executive vice president of
Stanton Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., which sells 1 million written
honesty tests a year, admits that his questionnaires are only 88%
reliable.  Employers should use a written test only to supplement
interviews and background checks, Walls points out. Critics of the
tests contend that many managers are lazy when it comes to hiring.
"They want quick answers to the question `Will a person be honest?'
" explains Jon Bauer, a law professor at the University of
Connecticut. "Honesty tests have the look and feel of something
scientific."

    As pencil-and-paper tests proliferate, they could run into as
much opposition as the electronic variety. Massachusetts has
explicitly banned written character tests, and other states have
laws that may curb their use. The House Education and Labor
Committee has asked the Office of Technology Assessment to
determine whether such tests are dependable gauges of integrity.
"There's a tremendous disagreement about whether you can even
measure honesty," says Wayne Camara, who develops testing standards
for the American Psychological Association. But no one disputes
that when honesty is lacking, the effect on business can be
extremely expensive.