HR Compliance Information Specialists - LegalWorkplace.com
Sign In | Register | View Cart
 

Brought to you by the Alexander Hamilton InstituteBrought to you by the Alexander Hamilton Institute

 
  Speak with a customer care representative
by dialing toll-free (800) 879-2441
Speak with a customer care representative by dialing toll-free (800) 879-2441
FREE E-NEWSLETTERS
Bonus: Sign up today and get a free report, How To Conduct HR Audits.

Employment Law Today
Benefits Alert
HR Soapbox Blog
E-Mail:  Go

We value your privacy.
Research Topics
Benefits
Discipline/Performance Issues
Discrimination
Hiring
Leave
Payroll Management
Privacy Policy Guidelines
Record-Keeping Documents
Safety & Health
Termination
Training
Free Reports
Free HR Forms
Free Job Descriptions & Interview Questions
State DOL & Other HR Websites
Message Board
AHI Store
Products by Topic
Products A to Z
Web Conferences
Labor Law Posters

 

Subscribe: RDF Feed


Recent Posts:

 



Forward blog to a friend.

HR Soapbox Blog

Do You Dig For Dirt Online About Job Applicants?

 Permanent link

(Published September 21, 2009)

The rise in popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace has given rise to the question of whether employers can or should search such sites to find out more about potential employees.  Most of the respondents on message boards that I've read come down on the side of not using these sites as research tools.  And I believe there are more cons than pros to this practice.  So I was surprised to see a CareerBuilder.com survey in which 45% of respondents said they do use the sites to research job applicants.

I've never done it.  Part of the reason is because I'm not that technologically inclined.  The last time I was in hiring mode, I had just created a personal Facebook profile.  (It probably took me another six months after that to do something with it.)  So looking up applicants was a pretty foreign concept to me, even though I had written about it before.

Would I do it now?  To be honest, I can't say I would never do it — curiosity might get the better of me, and I might Google finalists just to see what came up.  However, I'm assuming that what would come up is a lot of junk, judging by what came up when I Googled my own name.  (C'mon, I know I'm not the only one to Google myself!)

That's just one of the many reasons I'd likely refrain from using Google or social networking sites to learn more about job candidates.  Sure, it's quick enough to type someone's name into a search engine, but how many hits will you have to wade through before you get to: 1) the correct individual, and 2) something relevant about the correct individual.

The biggest disadvantage of this practice is that you don't know if you're looking at information about the correct person.  Don't be so sure that the most unique name isn't shared by others.  One likely case: fathers and sons.  Heck, I was surprised to find that there's more than one of "me" out there.

Ok, so what if you've already conducted the interviews, so you know what the candidates look like and you can match them to the name, picture, and some other identifying information that you find online.  Then, it should be no problem to use what you find, for better or worse, right?  Wrong.  The identity could be right, but the information could be wrong.  How do you know that that MySpace page filled with racist and sexist rants was actually created by the individual?  You don't.  The person could have a technologically savvy enemy…or a very unfunny friend.

Another reason I'm surprised that so many people answered in the affirmative in the CareerBuilder survey is that the majority of information typically unearthed has nothing to do with the person's professional life.  The less you know about a candidate's personal activities the better.  Whenever you make a hiring decision that is based on, influenced by, or appears to be based on or influenced by non-work-related factors — especially if a protected characteristic comes into play — you increase the risk of being accused of illegal discrimination.

Better to use LinkedIn or other professional networking sites, and verify the information in the interview.  The best ways to hire the best candidates remain the old-fashioned ones: skilled interviews, reference checks, skills tests.

Now, having said all that, I'd love to hear from those of you who agree with the 45% of the CareerBuilder survey, and have stories of success using Google and social networking sites to research job applicants. 

Gloria Ju
Editor in Chief


I think it's a risky practice. I agree -- I'm only interested in a person's professional life and that they can perform the job. Obviously, sometimes professional and personal overlaps but deal with it when it does. Content unearthed on social networking sites could be totally out of context or jokes, etc.
Posted by: Suz at 9/23/2009 10:00 AM


Most of the Facebook and MySpace profiles are set to private anyway (I know mine is!), so what are you "learning"? Stick with checking references etc. and leave the personal out of the hiring process.
Posted by: Paula at 9/23/2009 10:00 AM


Since most of my employees work in a service industry where they are the "face" of the business, I check to see if they have social networking sites that are open to the public. If so, we just ask that they make them private. Because way too many of them have information/pictures that I would rather our clients not see unless they are truly friends with these employees.
Posted by: RR at 9/23/2009 10:24 AM


I work for a public school system and facilitate the hiring process for principals. Google searches are a MUST in making these hiring decisions. If we don't do it before we make a hiring decision, parents and students will do it afterward. We've had one very unpleasant situation where this happened and we had to request the new hire's resignation on their first day at work based on newspaper articles that were uncovered.
Posted by: David at 9/23/2009 10:28 AM


I totally agree with you. I hire based on qualifications not on personal life. Years ago this sort of "searching" and "curiosity" was not even considered, your personal life - off the clock - is of no concern to me. I know many HR professionals who not only look at these sites but purposely look for dirt, not only on those they interview but also on those who are currently employed. When I ask them how would they feel if their job was based on what you post on the social websites, their reply is, "That is why I don't have any accounts on the social websites. Or my favorite, "Then they should not post anything they don't want people to see or read after all it is a public domain available for all to view." The argument is frustrating. Unfortunately, as you pointed out many HR staff(managers, supervisors, co-workers, etc)are "searching." As my mother used to say, "If you don't want others to know(or see)then keep it to yourself."
Posted by: AH at 9/23/2009 11:14 AM


HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If they get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire them in the first place because they might come after us when we eventually fire them.

Would I advise recruiters and hiring managers to scour the web looking for any bit of evidence of what a candidate writes? No. Would I label a recruiter remiss if she didn't run a google search on the candidate in addition to a background search? Yes.
Posted by: Eileen at 9/25/2009 1:04 AM


Leave a comment
Name *
Email: *
Homepage
Comment


Sign Up To Receive The HR Soapbox Blog

Copyright © 2010 Alexander Hamilton Institute | Home | Privacy Policy | About AHI | Contact Us | Site Map