Employers Use Social Networking Sites to Vet Job Applicants
A recent survey commissioned by Career Builder found that up to forty-five percent of employers use popular social networking sites to screen potential job candidates. This is a huge jump from a similar survey last year which revealed that only twenty two percent utilized such sites. An additional eleven percent of employers surveyed said that they intended to start using social networking sites to research applicants. As these sites grow in popularity, it will be increasingly important for potential employees to use caution in deciding what to include on their sites.
Of those employers surveyed, twenty-nine percent reported using Facebook, 26 percent used LinkedIn and 21 percent used MySpace. Ten percent search blogs while seven percent utilize Twitter.
Not surprisingly, the industries most likely to use social networking sites to screen candidates included those in the Information Technology (63% used the sites) and Professional and Business Services (53% reported using the sites).
When questioned about the types of postings which resulted in a decision not to hire a candidate, the survey revealed the following:
- applicant posted provocative photos or content
- applicant posted content about drug use or drinking
- applicant criticized a previous employer, coworkers or clients
- applicant exhibited poor communication skills
- applicant made discriminatory comments
- applicant lied about their qualifications
- applicant shared confidential information learned from a former employer.
It is not all bad news for compulsive Facebookers. In fact many employers reported that they found content on social networking sites which caused them to hire a candidate. The types of postings which resulted in a decision to hire included
- The social profile provided a good feel for the candidate’s personality and fit – 50%
- The profile supported the candidate’s professional qualifications – 39%
- The candidate was creative – 38%
- The candidate showed solid communication skills – 35%
- The candidate was well rounded – 33%
- Other people posted good references about the candidate – 19%
- Candidate received awards and accolades – 15%
As a general rule, employers are well advised to use all tools available to screen applicants as one bad hire can be extremely costly. Research gleaned from these social networking sites can provide valuable insight into a candidate which may not be readily apparent from a resume, application or even an in-person interview.
The potential risk to an employer who relies on what they see on a site to refuse to hire a candidate has yet to be tested in the courts. It is conceivable that an unsuccessful applicant could claim that they had a right to privacy in what they did outside of work and the employer violated that right by penalizing them for the way they lived their private lives. Such a challenge is unlikely to succeed since posting things in the public domain pretty much destroys any right to privacy the applicant might have and unless the content on the site which results in a no-hire is found to be discriminatory against some protected class, the challenge should fail.
Employers are generally free to develop whatever criteria they find appropriate for a job as long as the criteria don’t discriminate directly against protected categories of employees nor have a discriminatory impact on such categories. None of the above examples are likely to fall into either of these exceptions.
