|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Checking Out Candidates Online
A recent study says about one-third of HR professionals are using online social-networking sites as part of the candidate screening process. The weight such information is given varies by company. One privacy advocate says such screening may be cause for concern and suggests HR create a policy on the subject.
Would you hire a law student whose breasts are the subject of message boards across the Internet? Probably not, say two female Yale Law School students who are suing the AutoAdmit Web site, a college and law school discussion site, for posting what they say are obscene and threatening messages about them last year. One of the women says she did not get a single summer job offer after some 20 interviews. Their story may be extreme, but it's a sign of the times. Every day, some HR professionals are searching the Internet for information about job applicants. They may start with Google or Yahoo, but the cyber paper trail quickly leads to social networks, like MySpace and Facebook, personal blogs and videos that may contain incriminating or questionable information about job candidates. According to a March study by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy-research organization in Traverse City, Mich., 35 percent of the 412 HR professionals surveyed had recently Googled a job applicant. About one-quarter (23 percent) had scanned social-network sites, and 21 percent had reviewed blog entries. And about one-third (34 percent) of those who searched said they had found "negative stigma" that adversely affected their hiring decisions. For now, experts say HR professionals are handling online information on a case-by-case basis. But that may not protect them down the road from potential liability, warns Larry Ponemon, chairman of the Ponemon Institute. "I think in general there is the potential for a privacy firestorm," Ponemon says. " ... I think ultimately it's a First Amendment issue. Organizations [like MySpace] will say, we have the right to put information out there. The companies need to realize it may not be honest. The deepest pocket is the employer's." Ponemon advises HR leaders to set up guidelines to deal with this type of situation. "The organization needs to make a tough decision if it's an appropriate use of information. If so, they should have guidelines, [and decide] what are the more reliable tools and what's the obligation of the company to inform the candidate." To Ponemon's surprise, only 12 percent of those surveyed said they obtained consent from the candidates in advance of searching the Web, and only 18 percent said they informed the candidates about the results. Because the information is in the "public domain, there is no need to ask permission in advance," says Peter Weddle, of Weddle's, a publisher of guides to Internet job sites based in Stamford, Conn. But HR does "owe the courtesy" to discuss questionable information with applicants. "I believe if [something] comes up troubling, rather than dismiss [the candidate], which I hear [recruiters] are doing, they should have a conversation. That is the ultimate accuracy check." Ponemon was also surprised that HR professionals are not bothered by privacy issues. "I had a conversation two weeks ago with an HR executive. She is the senior VP in HR with a major corporation. The end goal for her was to protect her company. If there's any information she can use to make it safe, she's going to do it [regardless of the potential privacy issues that might be involved]," says Ponemon. Weddle agrees. "HR has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the employer, to acquire as much information as possible. ... What a person publishes is a reflection of their judgment and personality. Both are appropriate things to consider," he says. Recruiters at Manpower Inc., in Milwaukee, Wisc., search social networks on a "case by case basis," says spokesman Paul Holley. Recruiters might check online when they know a client for whom they are recruiting is reviewing Internet activity, he says. Other reasons recruiters may do Web searches are when the job is at an executive level; when they want to ensure the candidate is who he says; when they want to look at someone's past work; or when they are filling a position that requires security clearance. "I'm not sure how much weight [we give online information]. It's hard to know if it's true or untrue. ... . It all depends on the subject," says Eric Smartt, senior manager for First Advantage Recruiting Solutions in Fishers, Ind. Smartt gave the example of a rejected candidate who had posted on MySpace about a motorcycle accident involving alcohol: "In that case, there may have been red flags anyway." On the other hand, he says, if a search suggests past drug use, "we don't confront it directly. We would let them know there's a drug test." And a "light-hearted conversation," even on a questionable subject, is taken with a grain of salt, he says. HR professionals realize many candidates now in their 20s posted shocking material when they -- and social networks -- were young and reckless. "It's more a generational thing," Smartt says. "At first, it was cool; we're still seeing that information out there. ... These kids are [out of] college now, and employers are Googling to find their names." If HR has a question, they should use their traditional reference and background checking services, Smartt says. "They definitely are more objective."
June 21, 2007 Copyright 2007© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||