It's complicated
Pre-vetting candidates using social media can be a minefield. What's an HR person to do?It seems that with the rise of internet, so has grown an irresistible urge among employers to pre-vet candidates via their online and social activity. And we’re not just talking about LinkedIn here, but Facebook, Twitter and any other channel on which a candidate has a presence.
In fact, according to Jobvite’s 2014 Social Recruiting Survey, no fewer than 93% of respondents review a candidate’s social profile before making a hiring decision. Over half of the respondents (55%) have reconsidered a candidate because of what they’ve found. And 61% of those reconsiderations were negative.
Employers might think this is all fine because it helps get a more rounded view of the candidate in question. You wouldn’t want to employ someone who regularly alludes to taking drugs on their Facebook profile. And, anyway, if it’s in the public space, it’s fair game.
But what if you find yourself judging candidates on attributes that are wholly irrelevant to the job at hand? Maybe you don’t like their political affiliation, the sight of their three very time-consuming-looking kids, their references to sex, or their age. Perhaps you’re just offended by the sight of them clearly having fun on a night out.
Is that fair and ethical? Is it even legal – given employment laws on data protection, privacy and discrimination? For employers and candidates, this is dangerous territory.
The urge to search
‘Even if it’s not an official part of the candidate screening process, more and more employers are checking candidates’ online profiles and any other places where the person is mentioned online,’ says Jennifer Holloway, a personal brand consultant and author of Personal Branding for Brits.
LinkedIn is of course the first port of call, followed by Facebook and Twitter. But employers might not stop there. ‘A Google search of someone’s name might also see an employer checking out anywhere else a person has left an online footprint – whether that’s an Amazon review, contributions to online discussions or appearances in the media,’ says Holloway.
It may seem harmless. But as Ksenia Zheltoukhova, a research adviser at the CIPD says, problems arise when employers do not conduct such searches properly. ‘It’s a grey area,’ she warns.
Take, for instance, the recent case of Daniel Hegglin, a former Morgan Stanley banker who has spent years tackling extreme hostile attacks by online trolls who have falsely accused him of being a murderer, paedophile and Ku Klux Klan member. The abusive and untrue material first appeared in 2011, ran to more than 4,000 websites and regularly appeared in search results.
Hegglin ended up taking Google to court and has just settled his case. Google is now required to make ‘significant efforts’ to remove the abusive material. But in the three years it has taken Hegglin to get to this point, many an employer would have done a cursory search and run in the other direction.
This is an extreme example. But it makes you wonder how many employers would take the time to check the accuracy of their findings or even ensure they have Googled the correct ‘Daniel Smith’. Many would not inform candidates of such checks either, giving them no opportunity to correct errors before the die is cast.
Advice for employers
No wonder the CIPD has attempted to address some of these issues. ‘We know this is happening so we have to provide some guidance as to how to do it properly,’ says Zheltoukhova.
‘Pre-employment checks: an employer’s guide’, published at the end of 2013, offers advice to HR professionals and others involved in recruitment as to how to fairly check a candidate’s online credentials. It specifically advises that employers should:
- Take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of information sourced online
- Distinguish between social media used for professional purposes and those that are personal (ie, check out LinkedIn, but not Facebook)
- Apply the same level of care to avoid unconscious bias and discrimination online, as in face-to-face interviews or other aspects of the recruitment process
- Ensure candidates are aware of the checks being carried out and give them the opportunity to respond to findings
‘You need to be clear to yourself,’ adds Zheltoukhova. ‘What exactly are you looking for and how it will add value, above and beyond what you would gain in an interview? Unless there is an absolute requirement to get this information as part of the recruitment process, then you shouldn’t really be doing it.’
The legal landscape
The fact is, though, that despite employment legislation on data protection, privacy and discrimination, all of which could pertain to online vetting, the law lags behind the specifics of social media advances. As long as that’s the case, many an employer might just overlook this guidance.
‘There are legal implications of pre-vetting candidates online but very little case law,’ says Joanne Owers, partner at law firm Fox Williams. ‘What there is has more to do with disciplining existing employees. There’s little by way of candidates using this as part of a claim.’
No doubt the law will catch up to a degree. The European Court of Justice recently ruled against Google, establishing that ordinary users have the ‘right to be forgotten’ in search engine results, when the information in question is ‘inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant’. This may not protect the Hegglins of this world, but it could help a job candidate who is continually hampered by a Google search showing up a relatively minor misdemeanour dating back years.
Google has since been flooded with ‘right to be forgotten’ requests – of which around 40% have been granted. But this still means most requests will be denied and concerns that such steps translate to online censorship suggest no imminent legislative crackdown.
Candidates respond
In the meantime, it seems that the onus will be on candidates to protect themselves. ‘[Candidates] should go online, search for their name and see what comes up,’ says Holloway. ‘Then, they should think like an employer and go over everything they see and ask themselves, “If I didn’t know me at all, what impression would I get from this?”. Then they should clean up the stuff that’s not creating a positive impression and ensure their privacy settings keep anything untoward from getting out.’
This means posting as much positive content across as many social media outlets as possible to push down any negative content on search engines. It might also be possible for anything really detrimental to be pulled at source – although as we have seen success is far from guaranteed in this respect.
There are companies emerging too that have been quick to see the challenges in this area and are specifically designed to support individuals (and businesses) facing particularly serious reputational damage caused by negative content online.
‘Of the enquiries we get from individuals, at least half of them relate to issues regarding problems online that are affecting their ability to either change jobs or get a job,’ says Simon Wadsworth, managing director of online reputation management firm Igniyte. ‘Usually this is caused by someone being caught in the media spotlight, having a court or tribunal hearing or being flamed by someone else online.’
Wadsworth cites a recent example in which a senior financial figure was caught having a rant and filmed on a camera phone that went viral. ‘He lost his highly paid job, his slot on the business news on a TV channel and had to leave the country. Two years on, he still hasn’t re-entered the job market,’ he says.
‘It is vital, even for first-jobbers, to treat your Google page one as the first part of your CV,’ adds Wadsworth. ‘The fact is that if this is not representing you well, lots of employers will not take your application further.’
About the author
