Social Media, Social Networking, Social Recruiting

Is using social media websites to reference candidates wrong?

Today’s post is a change from my planned one - why? - because of an international ‘discussion’ that I was involved with on Twitter this morning, started on Justin Hillier’s blog post entitled Social Media candidate background checks.

The subject matter is seemingly simple, but it evokes some very strong opinions from people, so I thought I would bring it into my blog for some (no doubt heated) debate!

The question is:

Is using social media websites to reference check candidates wrong?

Let me just state where I am coming from on this first (well it is my blog!).

Legally, this is of course a minefield. If a company deliberately or publicly use sites like LinkedIn or Facebook, for example, to ‘research’ candidates prior to interview selection, then they have to declare that as part of their selection procedure. If the company doesn’t do this for every candidate and have set defined comparative criteria, then they are wide-open to litigation.
So the best answer is to not do it at all.
However, the reality of this is that this sort of thing happens every single working day…..unofficially. Most line managers and recruiters think nothing of doing a ‘quick’ Google search or LinkedIn search to ‘check’ the credentials of CV’s that have been presented to them >> and this has been going on for years. Rightly or wrongly this is the real world we are now living in. Personal information is now everywhere as people use Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter in the huge numbers they are.

There are some people - in this morning’s Twitter banter - namely the ”feisty” Aussie Justin Hillier, the ‘stuck in the 90’s’ Gareth Jones, ‘man of reason’ Matt Jessop and the ‘Aussie behind a tree’ Aaron Dodd, that think differently! Here is the Twitter stream from this morning (click on the image to expand it to see the content):

If you can’t see this then let me just paraphrase the discussion (well sort of……):

Justin: He accepts professional ‘snooping’ but objects (strongly) when it steps over the line into his private life. Obviously he has whole wealth of Aussie Facebook pictures and stories he is trying to hide!!

Gareth: He is still stuck in the era of Wham and Rick Astley. He hasn’t yet realised that there is this internet ‘thingy’ and what it can do! A healthy dose of reality check is needed, the next time he visits the doctor!

Aaron: The Aussie man of reason who obviously speaks sense all the time! (Well he did agree with me didn’t he?)

Matt: As always, Matt is the reality checker - he reminded us that maybe the blame should be put at the feet of the candidates for a change. After all they are the ones who put the content online in the first place weren’t they? Did anyone force them to do it?

It is a good job, we (all of the above) enjoy the healthy debates like this - otherwise there could some serious altercations!! Ha ha ha. Don’t forget to follow us all - @andyheadworth, @garelaos, @aarondodd, @justin_hillier, @matt_jessop - on Twitter to see where these discussions go next!!

What do you think?

Do you agree with me and Aaron that it happens anyway, and that stopping it (the unofficial part of it anyway) is futile?

Do you agree with Matt, that the candidates should take more responsibility?

Do you agree with Gareth that everything is illegal until proved otherwise and that the internet should be banned for recruiting?

I think this discussion may well go on for a while……….

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Alconcalcia

It’s a very tricky one isn’t it? I mean a quick check on Linkedin wouldn’t be amiss because that is pretty much purely a business networking related platform. Indeed whenever I make a new business acquaintance one of the first things I do is see if they are on Linkedin.

Where I think it becomes intrusive is in trying to judge someone from say their Facebook presence. I’ve met all sorts of characters in business down the years, some of whom I wouldn’t even want to try and match their lifestyles. However, at the same time many of them were amongst the best in their workforce. One recruiter I knew was so good at his job he only worked mornings and invariably went on the lash for the rest of the day, but he was the company’s top earner. Would that back then he had a Facebook account and effectively blogged about his drinking habits. he would, to the uninformed eye, seem to be a big risk as an employee.

The thing is though surely, if you;re not connected to someone there is only so much info you can glean isn’t there? So is the whole issue of social network site snooping a real problem or something that some employers wish they could get more into the heart of but are unable to as it stands? Can anyone enlighten me?

PS - I am as as clean as a whistle. Maybe a secret lemonade drinker at worst. Oh and red wine, and beer, and occasionally a nice malt. But I don’t do any drugs, not even headache pills. Oh and I’m a non-meat eater. Guess that makes me a tree hugging, carrot crunching freak. A job at Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth for me I fear.
Matt Jessop

Thank god for Alisdair being as clean as a whistle, I was feeling lonely over here in my cardigan and slippers as the reality check!

To expand on my point a little further though; Offline, we all use credit cards, but I take steps to protect my PIN number when I’m at the cashpoint or the till, Equally, many of us use our credit cards online, but that doesn’t mean we are going to post our credit card details on our LinkedIn profiles for the world to find. I believe it’s called common sense. Few people would talk openly in a bar or on the train about their addictions, pecadillos or problems, so why if you do it publicly online do we expect to be treated differently

Social Media is a fantastic development, I am a huge advocate and firmly believe it has enhanced my personal and professional lives. However I take simple steps to keep the two things separate, I use the built in controls to limit who can see my Facebook posts, my photos on Flickr etc.

Having said all of that, I don’t believe that companies should justify being surreptitious about their checking processes based on candidate naivety. There is nothing wrong with background checking, in fact I believe it is a process that is under used in the industry. However transparency of recruitment process is a must.

If you want to check me out, fine, I have nothing to hide and even if I had you wont find it. If you want to check me out behind my back, you are not the sort of company I want to work for.
Gareth Jones

some good points Matt. But you cant compare credit card info. And, the main problem is that most companies (and recruiters) who do this are making subjective assessments and this is wrong, very wrong. Background checks, in the style of a properly carried out structured check on things that are relevant for the job, no problem.

Worming round someones facebook profile photo’s (If they have not closed their profile) and snorting at the content is just juvenile. And a lot of people are doing it. they don’t have the maturity, skills or qualifications to be making judgements about people on this basis.
Stephen O’Donnell

If I take a legalistic view of things, it helps to put some perspective onto the dilemma.
In an interview situation, the candidate offers information upon which he can be assessed for the job. In the form of his/her CV, application form, information given to the recruiter, and answers given in the interview itself. This can be added to with assessments, psychometric tests, and references (which he will he agreed to). In all of these cases, he/she will have given his assent overtly or tacitly.
I view information gained by other means as heresay, insomuch as it’s not directly attributable to the candidate, and no permission has been sought. A personal blog, facebook account, Linkedin profile, and Twitter account can all be viewed as public utterances, and therefore allowed to be taken into account for any decision, so long as you are not considering their age, race, religion, political views etc. If you find he is a member of the BNP, for example, then you must disregard it, and find another reason to drop his application.
The easiest way is to include a request on the application form to take your own references as to his/her suitability for the job. With that consent, you can search away.
When all is said and done, most candidates are rejected for no more specific reason than “We have identified another more suitable candidate”. Stating anything else on a rejection letter will get you embroiled in a bad situation with a disgruntled applicant.

PS. It is a very different situation if you want to rescind an offer already made. In that case the onus is on you to explain why.
Jo Jordan

I go with Gareth on this one.

We should remember what we are trying to accomplish. Our first impressions of people are almost instant and deeply emotional. We have to ask whether we want to run our business on that basis. Maybe we do. If so, enough said. If we believe that we might be easily outrun by the competition if we make decisions like that, then we will take steps to structure information and present relevant information to decision makers. I drink my own koolaid here and never select my own direct reports. Not being judge, jury, and executioner is the most basic idea in the way we run our society. I might veto a recommendation but I would want to have very strong grounds. I set up a structure and let other people do the vetting.

Our second goal is an ongoing positive relationship with our candidates. Even if we don’t select them, they remain in our sphere of business and are quite possibly customers. I imagine that if we assessed the damage recruiters do to a company’s reputation, it might even exceed the damage accountants do. Yes, most of us know a company through its accountants not its sales people, and accountants rarely think about relationships.

Our third goal is our corporate culture. If we encourage a climate of disrespect, . . . least said.

Having said all this, I have worked in a place which flew people half way across the world for interviews that lasted a week. Everyone had a chance to meet them. They were entertained for three meals a day. The ‘decisions’ were made in two final interviews on the last day after everyone had their say and had had private meetings. Their private lives weren’t peered into very much. The opposite in fact. They had the chance to explore in great detail what their private lives might be like in that town. But their professional history was explored minutely through internet research and in “side ways” conversations over meals and duing guided tours. People dug very deep on the grounds that they would be working together over a long period of time and the relationship must work out in both directions.

Ultimately, the decision was made on professional grounds. Could they do the job? Would they do the job? Did they understand the immediate pressures that would dictate the priorities for the forseeable future?

And no, the final decision makers didn’t take them to dinner. They didn’t have time or inclination. They were simply drawing together all the process thread for a decision that is as important to the candidate as the organization.

I’ve seen similar processes coaching MBA students. One student had 19 interviews back-to-back over a weekend topped and tailed with a 10 hour flight. He didn’t get the job and remains working across the road for one of their key suppliers. If they’ve done their job well, it was the right decision for both of them AND their current business relationship is strengthened.
Stephen Turnock

It might be a case for more reality check and also look back to the future [that train IS in the station!]

Today, putting legal and ethical aside for a moment people *today* will look at publicly available materials and this will and is part of a decision process, unwritten and depends on those inner boundaries and self regulation. Applicants may indeed reveal more information about themselves through social media than they normally would during the hiring process and some materials one finds, should one dare to look, depending upon your expectations, one may consider inappropriate [depending on the role being considered].

There are still many recruiters and employers, that do not have knowledge of [or access to] this avenue as well as the people community [candidates] even giving it a thought.

Assuming we in consideration of good practice, have made clear an intention to use public SM site for reference, then I suspect we could lawfully use information relating to an applicant’s illegal drug use, poor work ethic, poor writing or communications skills, feelings about previous employers and racist or other discriminatory tendencies or consider an applicant’s general poor judgment in maintenance of his or her public online space.

We know the parameters in using any information learned from social media about an applicant’s protected class status — race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It may be hard for the employer to prove later that it was only viewed, but didn’t actually use, the information obtained in a social medium when making a decision.

Some employers reference such info but some don’t but many more will in time. Many recruiters and employers have yet to discover SM let alone build process and policy. Many candidates themselves have still yet to consider SM for their professional profiles and again, let alone the implications of what is on view.

Back to the future..

Most professional candidates will build professional profiles containing a media mix eg video, presentations, recommendations, references and work examples [ leading by evidence] and where permissible, inbound synchronisation connections from recruiters. Here will be live connections and interviews as well. The phone will still be very dominant [maybe a little hearsay will remain on that for a while].

More aggregation of information offers increased risks in some respects - but the candidate overall will manage their space securely which is in any event intended to inbound market and publish to *specific* open job community channels. Candidates wont be connecting their friends and granny to that professional profile and if for example, that is Linkedin and the more social space is nibblet, one might still be tempted to look at nibblet with a today 2010 mindset, but in future, only the qualified content on Linkedin will be of interest [if that’s is where their central profile lives].
Keith Robinson

Stupid question from an old man but if you use social media as a method to source - not background check - and in finding an ideal candidate you then read/see something that makes you think twice about going from pure sourcing into recruiting mode where do you stand?

Plus what therefore is the differenece between a background checking a candidate whohas “approached” you and rejecting and sourcing but rejecting before you approach them.

Is it about “intent”

Call the lawyers - but we had better backgound check them first.
Peter Gold

WTF: You lot got nothing better to write about? Anyone would think social media opens up the door for employers to find great new ways to reject candidates. It’s called life and some of you need to get one LOL

Andy - I think you reeled a few in on this one and as ever Gareth has to take comments literally and tell the commenter they are WRONG! Of course in the 90’s…..
Ann Marie van den Hurk, APR

Wait! You mean Wham! broke up? To be serious, this is an important topic. We all Google people and HR professionals are no different. I think what concerns me when you are being judged on sex, age, race, marital status, disability, etc. There’s no way of knowing if that’s why you were rejected or your qualifications didn’t fit. As someone who is currently in a job search, I’m not ashamed about anything I say on Twitter, write in my blog or comments I’ve made on other blogs, but what makes me wonder about is the other things like am I the wrong sex or am I old/young? It is a worry.
Andy Headworth

Alastair,

Wow! you are the R Whites man! You kept that quiet 🙂

I think you have agree with my point >> “whenever I make a new business acquaintance one of the first things I do is see if they are on Linkedin”

In my experience this is exactly what people do when recruiting, unofficially of course!
Andy Headworth

Matt,

I agree, transparency is the key to this whole subject. However there are many recruiters (corporates and agencies) that have no idea of the laws with regards to this.
And I am not actually sure people want to make these things official, just yet because of the extra work and legal implications!

All I could find out about you when I searched, was the fact you had cheated to become milk monitor at primary school!!

Andy
Andy Headworth

Gareth,

Whether they have the “maturity, skills or qualifications to be making judgements about people on this basis” on Facebook is pretty much irrelevant. You can’t say doing it on LinkedIn is OK, but on Facebook it isn’t.
The fact you are doing a search at all is the key.

Whether you like it or not, the ‘unofficial’ searching has been happening for years and will continue to do so. Before the internet, you used to pick up the phone and do it by speaking to people ……unofficially of course!!

Andy
Andy Headworth

Brilliant Stephen,

Thanks for the legal heads-up here!!

Andy
Andy Headworth

Jo,

I have to say, I like your example you share. However, for the majority of companies, this approach is far too time consuming.

I would be keen to understand how this excellent and thorough approach, compares in terms of levels of retention for the successful recruits.

But going back to the question in the post, on what basis are they selected for the interviews? Just on the CV? or do they do any further checking before the interview selection?

Andy
Andy Headworth

Great comments Stephen.

“It may be hard for the employer to prove later that it was only viewed, but didn’t actually use, the information obtained in a social medium when making a decision.” > They wouldn’t.

You are right, many people will take extra care with their online profile, but alas a much larger amount…..will not!

Andy
Andy Headworth

A sense of reality Keith……..nice!

Of course it is going to happen….!!
Andy Headworth

Peter,

To the point as always!!

>>> my sentiments……it has been going on for years, and will continue to happen in the future!

Andy
Andy Headworth

Ann Marie,

Well done for admitting it! Many seem shy about even doing that!

There is still a massive sense of naivety when it comes to people posting anything on the internet!

Good luck with the job search over there:)

Andy
Tom Webb-Skinner

2 things;

1 - I doubt you can find out anything that you actually need to know by this method that you couldn’t find out by being a decent recruiter and using effective questioning.
2 - If that’s the case this is (and this should be the important bit to a consultant) an utter waste of your own time.

So I suspect for most this would be another example of faffing about in an effort to find an easier way of doing something you can’t be bothered to (or just plain can’t) do properly!