Using the Internet to Research Applicants
Do any of you do any sort of Internet (Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc) search on your applicants? Are you scared of facing discrimination claims b/c the search may reveal the applicant is in a protected category?
In my most recent post on the [URL="http://hrhero.com/techforhr/"][I]Technology for HR blog[/I][/URL], I discuss a great tip from [URL="http://www.youngconaway.com/margaret-m-dibianca/"]Molly DiBianca[/URL] about how to put up a sort of firewall between the person doing the search and the person making the hiring decision as a way to avoid any possibility of improper discrimination. You can read it at [URL="http://bit.ly/95ejuY"]bit.ly/95ejuY[/URL]
What sort of Internet searches do you do? Has anyone ever decided not to hire a candidate because of what you saw in an Internet search?
In my most recent post on the [URL="http://hrhero.com/techforhr/"][I]Technology for HR blog[/I][/URL], I discuss a great tip from [URL="http://www.youngconaway.com/margaret-m-dibianca/"]Molly DiBianca[/URL] about how to put up a sort of firewall between the person doing the search and the person making the hiring decision as a way to avoid any possibility of improper discrimination. You can read it at [URL="http://bit.ly/95ejuY"]bit.ly/95ejuY[/URL]
What sort of Internet searches do you do? Has anyone ever decided not to hire a candidate because of what you saw in an Internet search?
Comments
There have been a few cases where I may have decided that someone wasn't worth interviewing again based on their inability to maintain the proper arm angle on a keg stand, or based on the spelling errors that pepper their diatribe about what an @ss their boss is...
My position is still that the discrimination fears here are overblown. I'm pretty astute... I can already determine the generation, race, and gender of 80-90% of the applicants I interview face-to-face before I look at their Facebook pics. (I know - I'm amazing sometimes.) My interview clairvoyance seems to hit a roadblock with religion, but that's okay. Heck, last week I even knowingly hired two Republicans... I'm as open-minded as anyone!
I read the article and found the lengths she suggested a little too much. I suppose if we were a large company who had been hit with some serious discrimination claims (and losses), I would think it was worth it. Most of us though, do not need to go to such extremes.
I guess I am too lazy to look all these people up, so I don't. I turn it all over to a 3rd party who does the background check for us. The cost is minimal, and I don't have to worry about someone (me) making a stupid mistake. I also don't have to worry that I will give credence to something on the web that turned out to be false.
Just my 2 cents (several times).
I did agree to blog for one of our trade associations about a year ago. It took six days for my first post to actually make it through their approval channels, and it was very tame. I didn't bother to send them a second.
For example, if you Google my name you get a few photos of me along with a lot of paintball images, guns, guys in camo, etc. You might get the impression that I am a militia guy or that I am into playing soldier.
The truth is that a few years back I used to write articles about paintball for a friend's company. He paid me and it was fun. Nowadays I hardly ever play but my "paintball persona" is still floating about cyberspace.
Someone who was considering me for a job and Googled my name might think I was some kind of weekend warrior or rabble rouser.
And as you all know, I am meek as newborn lamb.
And she also admonished that you need to be careful to make sure you (1) have found the "John Smith" who is your applicant and then (2) give him a chance to explain. As Paul points out, there may be a reasonable explanation -- perhaps one that makes you like the candidate even more. (I like the idea of Paul as an embedded journalist in the weekend paintball wars. I think that would make you an excellent fit for our department.)