PLEASE VISIT OUR SPONSORS

Recruitment & Retention

Published February 2010

Life Is Not an Open (Face)book

 

  Nick Fishman

Social networks and other online media offer a seemingly easy way to weed out poor candidates. But when brand image, legal liability and top talent are at stake, there is no substitute for solid employee screening practices.

It's a hard reality every hiring manager these days knows well: More people are vying for fewer jobs. Applicants pad their resumes even during economic booms, so the temptation to embellish one's experience, abilities and credentials — and downplay drug charges or other criminal history — is even greater now.

Background screening has never been more critical, but the methods used are particularly important in this digital age. Some screening methods could expose an organization to legal liability, lost business or brand damage.

Social Media: Screening Friend or Foe?

Back in the day, hiring managers checked applicant references, maybe even took the extra step to verify college degrees, and the rest was up to a background screening partner. But the advent of social media sites has opened the door to a whole new kind of applicant screening.

CareerBuilder publishes an annual study on social network use among recruiters. In 2008, 22 percent of hiring managers were looking on social media sites — including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter and blogs — as part of their research and screening efforts. In 2009, that number jumped to 45 percent. An additional 11 percent intended to start using social media sites for screening.

There are three challenges that arise from this trend.

1. Candidate checks of any kind must abide by EEOC guidelines and not be deemed discriminatory. Online photos give instant information on a candidate's race, gender and age, and postings may reveal sexual orientation and political or religious preferences — all potential opportunities for bias. As the saying goes, once exposed to this information, "You can't unring that bell." Rejected candidates may have a legal case if they suspect a decision was influenced by what a recruiter saw online.
2. Facebook photos and candid tweets have been the downfall of promising candidates. Stories abound of applicants being rejected for saucy language, images of partial nudity or substance abuse, and similar behavior online. In fact, 35 percent of employers say they have found content on social networking sites that caused them not to hire the candidate. However, one can't believe everything one sees. Many sites have no verification process, and several can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Sites such as YouTube and MySpace have few content requirements, and nearly all sites allow users to make up a profile in anyone's name. Content can be fraudulently posted, and pictures can be altered. Hiring decisions made based on such fallible data could spell legal disaster for companies that lack consistent criteria to evaluate candidate information gathered from social media.
3. Hiring staff, harried by a glut of resumes and eager for a quick time to hire, may use social networking sites to thin the herd — and stop there. This is possibly a fast way for hiring personnel to eliminate the obvious bad apples, but MySpace and Twitter can never replace a thorough, professional background check.

Other Screening Considerations