There are now many proven and quantified benefits of serving customers and potential customers in their native languages. This has prompted many companies to hire bilinguals at an increased rate, or even to begin hiring bilinguals for the first time.

With this new demand comes new challenges, and identifying true bilinguals has proven to be a bigger challenge than many anticipated. Though candidates might indicate their language skills in a cover letter or on their resume ("Fluent in Spanish" or "Conversational in Mandarin"), it's the job of human resources and talent management professionals to make sure their claims are accurate.

Even if the candidate honestly judges themselves to be "fluent," what does that even mean? One person’s "fluent" may be another person's "conversational." Though I say I'm "advanced," you might think I'm a beginner.

Is Maria in today?

So, when someone claims to be "fluent in Spanish," how can organizations verify that claim? An automatic response might be to call on a trusted colleague — we'll call her Maria — who is fluent in Spanish. Maria frequently conducts business in Spanish, so this plan seems perfect — it's convenient (assuming she is in the office and available to chat with every candidate), and the solution looks attractively cost-effective.

But what seems like a logical and straightforward solution might not actually be the way you want to do it. In this case, it's really not in your company's best interest to appoint Maria as the official assessor of language skills.

Would you have your staff accountant evaluate the programming skills of a potential programmer just because he uses a computer every day? Let's take a look at why the "Maria solution" isn't a great idea — and how you can improve your hiring process to make sure that the people you hire have the language skills you need.

The risks of internal language testing

Despite her best intentions, Maria is not able to provide the level of standardization — not to mention depth or thoroughness — needed in language testing. Among other issues, she may end up having vastly different conversations with each candidate, touching on more technical concepts with some than with others. And even if she's using a script to dictate questions and topics, your only output is Maria's subjective opinions on each candidate's skills.

If you bring in multiple "testers," the problems actually get worse. The testers are likely to use different approaches and have different opinions, possibly leaving a candidate's fate with the company down to the lottery of who evaluates his or her language skills.

It's also important to look at another risk involved in using Maria, an untrained "language tester." If a job applicant made a complaint that your company was using unfair hiring practices, it would be tough to defend your use of Maria as a so-called expert. What training does she have to properly evaluate language skills? Who trained and certified her? As in any other hiring decision, the use of informal, nonstandardized selection tools opens your organization up to significant liability issues.

Using internal resources for your language testing needs lacks consistency and presents risks. The hiring team may end up making poor hiring decisions as a result, approving unqualified applicants and rejecting ones who could perform well, both of which can really hurt your business.

The cost of a bad hire

The consequences of making a "bad hire" are felt throughout an organization and will ultimately impact your clients and your bottom line. In a recent CareerBuilder survey of more than 6,000 hiring professionals, more than half of the respondents said they have felt the effects of a less-than-ideal hire.

"When you add up missed sales opportunities, strained client and employee relations, potential legal issues, and resources to hire and train candidates, the cost can be considerable," observes CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson.

According to the survey, 41 percent of respondents indicated that a bad hire within the past year had cost the company at least $25,000. And the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that the replacement costs for a bad hire are, on average, one-third of that person's annual salary. Simply put, bad hires are bad news, and a liability on many fronts.

So, when 80 percent of hiring managers in a 2013 survey reported finding that the candidates they selected did not have the language skills they claimed, how do you make sure that you're making the right choices?

Using a professional language testing approach

In the same CareerBuilder survey, it was revealed that the cause of bad hires — in 21 percent of cases — was attributed to a company not testing or researching the employee's skills well enough. By a similar token, a recent survey of 1,400 executives conducted by Robert Half found that 36 percent of them felt the top factor in a failed-hire situation was a "poor skills match."

This is where standardized testing can save the day, as well as save money. By measuring each candidate using the same test and rating candidates using established and relevant criteria, you'll end up with objective, defensible results that are easily compared and contrasted.

In this way, you'll be able to identify the candidates who excel in the specific language skills that the job requires — and weed out those who don't. In the process, you'll reduce the likelihood of a skills mismatch in the area of foreign language abilities.

By standardizing your language assessment technique, you protect both candidates and your company. Testing allows you to gain an accurate appraisal of each applicant's skills — and, ultimately, make the best hiring decision (and a fair one at that). It's a win-win all around.