POLL: Recruiters should look at candidates' Facebook profiles when hiring. Agree or Disagree?

Agree. At least they should try.

If the candidate can't figure out how to hide their own information on Facebook, I'd have no faith that they would be able to keep my company's private information secure and private.

If embarrassing information is available about the individual on Facebook, it is just as likely to be found by a competitor, a potential customer, or an attacker and used against the individual and the organization.

slippery slope, my friends. slippery slope. if you find enough on that candidate's facebook wall to change your mind about their fit for the job, then you better:

1) feel comfortable explaining that to a candidate (or court of law)
2) ask yourselves (or your hiring team) why said legitimate data wasn't uncovered in the normal course of your interview/screening process
3) look at the facebook pages of all your current employees (including yours) and see if there's anything similar there

it's a slippery slope, i say.

Disagree. When you go in for a job interview, job interviewers don't normally ask:

"What do you do in your time off?"
"What kind of people do you hang out with?"
"Do you have any insane weird habits?"
..and the list goes on about personal questions.

If recruiters want to get a better sense of an individual's work ethic, performance, and previous experience, then they should use LinkedIn or other similarly-related social media platforms. Facebook is more personal and I think is more geared to the candidate's life outside of work, which could help bias a recruiter's interest in the candidate. Sure Facebook's beefed up their privacy controls with the use of lists (similar to google+ circles), so of course the facebook user can limit posts and uploads based on the type of audience s/he wants to share an experience with, but then that kind of takes the fun out of the individual "being themselves", which may have nothing to do with how they are at work.

Have to agree with Charlie. Not only are you navigating a slippery slope, you're skating on thin ice. Best to ensure that you and/or the recruiter fully understand the laws associated with the use of social media and hiring within various States. Here's just one example: http://iowaemployerlaw.com/2010/04/15/social-media-and-the-hiring-process-the...

yes they should. but not to look for gotcha photographs from college...but to find the humanness in people. are they active? are they involved? do they travel? what are their interests? do they engage with people?

facebook can be a great window into people's humanity...

I disagree with the motion.
Recruiters get paid by their clients to find the right hires.
Why should they freeload through open sources of personal information - unless of course the potential hire actually wants their life history publicly available?
The important thing is that recruiters do not serve up a candidate critique to their clients that is any way influenced by what they have discovered on FaceAche and the like!

As evidenced by many of the comments above, the answer's not a simple "yes" or "no." I've written about the inclusion of social media in the recruiting process several times over the past year. Here are titles of and links to three pieces that might be of interest to folks:

Social Screening: Candidates - and Employers - Beware
http://tiny.cc/SocialScreeningPaper

Social Screening and Recruiting: Focusing on the Facts
http://tiny.cc/SocialScreeningFacts

Social Media and Recruiting 101: Overview and Recommendations
http://tiny.cc/SocialRecruiting101

I am glad to hear that everyone has such a stellar past or a well orchestrated web presence.

The point that I get from reading these responses is that you are so busy looking for reasons to eliminate a candidate that you do not really focus on the good that may be there on the web as well.
For example my FB icon is a picture of my motorcycle riders and owners group patch. From what I am hearing here that would automatically eliminate me based on your prejudice towards bikers. Now here is a piece of news for you motorcyclists raise more money for charities than any other group. There are numerous charity rides every weekend. Some weekends it is hard to decide which charity you want to ride for.

If you approach FB information with an open mind I think you would do much better.

He who is without sin cast....

If the FB profile is full of pictures of you with a drink in your hand then yes that would throw a red flag that there be an issue here.

As a hiring manager I tend to focus more on the resume and past performance than on your personal life.

I agree that it is a slippery slope. Your approach when researching can't be negative to begin with you must keep an open mind.

On a personal level, I absolutely agree that there is a line that *shouldn't* be crossed. FB is social; LinkedIn is professional. Corporations, employers, etc., already get at least 8+ hours out of us every day - when do we get to be as human as we are? The majority of us are not Neo Nazis or gang members, I'd wager.

That said, I do not have an FB account for this reason. Right or wrong, companies and recruiters are using personal data to make judgments. Not all, certainly, but it's a trend and one that I hope is slowed or stopped by case law.

I appreciate and actually agree with the sentiment of "what I do on my time away from work is my business," especially if I perform well at work, but once I post my activities to the Web, it's anybody's business. Sadly, the harsh reality is that it's not a perfect world where work and extracurricular activities are mutually exclusive, so recruiters and employers can and will use that information against you.

One person, one psyche. The recruiter may use any and all resources to know that psyche before hiring. No heartburns later. Shrinking labor pool should not force one to bring in people who can lead to shrinking company business.

Absolutely should - it's the recruiter's job to do this type of research.

As Peter says, it's up to the candidate to decide what they want to show publicly. If it's up there, it's fair game.

Absolutely yes! The candidate will show his or her authentic self on Facebook, and that is mission-critical learning for the recruiter and for the company.

If the candidate has created a faux Facebook personality that is off-putting, that is also a critical learning.

Totally yes - so long as they voluntarily placed the information out on the web it's not an invasion - it's research. But I feel for those that have come into an unfortunate position that someone was able to snap and post....that's hard to remove. I can't imagine some of the stuff I've done in life that could be out there had cameras been so prevalent 100 years ago when I was young..... :-)

It's not only an okay thing to do, it is an important thing to do for all the reasons stated above - most importantly, imo to address what Peter said in his answer above about the information about being out there for others to see.

This is particularly important if the job a customer-facing position. In 2011, it is almost second nature for many people to learn more about those they come in contact with by exploring their net-personna. If a client or prospect checks out the employee's online presence and there is something objectionable, it can cost the company money.

Having said that, to get to the root of the issue, there is not enough awareness today by folks who are on social networking sites, that what they type on the internet will still be out there until cockroaches are extinct. It seem like common sense, but so many people - young and old - seem to feel that when conversing from behind a keyboard, all the normal restrictions of society don't apply.

This has to be addressed in schools, college, business schools, by job counselors as often as possible. If not, good, smart, competent people will stifle their career options.

You Certainly made a strong case and one worth listening, Although this is a very grey area, it's prudent to say that each company should evaluate the candidtates abilities, Social or Not.

Yes, it is a slippery slope.

@Michael 27% of the citizens in the U.S. have common names. How can you be sure the background check is accurate. Criminal records do not include address, SSN or other unique identifiers.

Yes, I might find the wrong John Smith, but if I triangulate the person with past employers and co-workers across multiple social sources, the validity of my identification may be more accurate than criminal background check.

From the pages of every HR manager's handbook. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The best predictor of judgement on the job is judgement used to make decisions in one's personal life. Character and judgement are equally as important as skill set. Does the candidate question a rumor or pass it on without thought? Do they muck rake and gossip?

Ask any business or line manager what they see is their biggest management headache. It won't be a broken system, a budget to trim, or yet another meeting, it will be the problem employee. The man or woman who is compelled to stand at the water cooler and cast dispersions, undermine teamwork, and speak ill of others. If I hire someone like this, they undermine my team and my organization. Ultimately they wind up back at HR's doorstep.

As long as I ignore, age, race, gender, sexual preference, marital status, and whether the candidate has children, public domain information is no different than information gleaned from a former co-worker about their personal candor on the job.

Several of the above answers were insightful. However, I feel missed some of the values in checking out how people present themselves to the world. For example, we were interviewing a top candidate and he sent us his facebook link...oops! Really weird guy that sounded normal. He did this...we were not looking. I think professionals should know when they make who they are public, the information is not only accessible, but representative as they choose.

On the other side, I am not looking at a age, race, or other factors irrelevant to hiring I am lookng at the quality of an individual and how they present themselves to the world..what they are comfortable with. And, this does matter.

Generally, the rule of thumb most of the employers of our graduates tell us is they will check out a Facebook page of a candidate if either:
A) the candidate offers it to them (e.g. puts the URL on a resume, cover letter or mentions it in the job interview), or
B) Facebook information might be something relevant to the job for which the candidate is applying.
Those seem like pretty solid reasons without going overboard.
The next question is how far to go. Hiring managers could spend all day reading candidates' LinkedIn pages, Twitter histories, let alone "Googling" their candidates.
Good, old fashioned, job references seem to still be the best way to get an idea of an employee's work life without worrying about going too far into their personal lives.
Government jobs requiring security clearances are another story all together. When the FBI has done background checks for security clearances on some of our bachelors completing students, they go through everything.

agree

I agree with Kamili that recruiters should look at LinkedIn profiles which are more oriented to business and professional information. However, candidates should learn that once they post private information on any website, it's not private anymore and is now out there in the public domain, so if someone chooses to look at it, that's the risk they take.

I also agree with Bonnie Eisenfeld above. Recruiters can look anywhere when searches return results. It is the individuals' choice and responsibility to post appropriate information on public displays. LinkedIn is a professional network while Facebook is clearly a social network.

I find the use of social networks as a means of determining the qualifications or the business habits of an individual questionable.
For those of you who engage in social networking do you do it to have fun with your friends or as a tool for your resume?
Are you striving for political correctness in an area of your life that is meant for fun and social interaction?
If you had a great time at a party in RIO are you afraid to share it because of fears your employer may hold it against you?
Social networks are just that social not meant for business, what is the next step for us to begin to qualify people by who their friends are or by the number of friends they have?

I would even say linked in is at best dubious, how many of you have had your business friends endorse you on linked in?

Besides as soon as your company unblocks facebook the company bandwidth usage will skyrocket.

If I was a recruiter, I would. Not that it's ethical (?), but I'd want to have as much info as possible about someone I'm pitching for and expecting to make money from. And the question of should is really just a mental exercise because the fact is that employers, recruiters, etc., are already using Facebook and other publicly available data to inform themselves. Even college admission has been impacted. As an individual, I'd be very careful about what I post online for any reason.

Now, legally...that's a different consideration and where the question of "should we?" will be pondered and answered. We just don't have enough case law to establish precedents. That'll come with time, I believe.

Cultural differences also matter. Around the world, some societies are more open than others. I have seen a highly proficient and learned lady with several qualifications but only pausing as a 'baby-sitter' on facebook. Making general conclusions on this question could be quite difficult.

John B. Walugembe
Managing Director - RDS
www.rdsug.com

Cultural differences also matter. Around the world, some societies are more open than others. I have seen a highly proficient and learned lady with several qualifications but only pausing as a 'baby-sitter' on facebook. Making general conclusions on this question could be quite difficult.

John B. Walugembe
Managing Director - RDS
www.rdsug.com

Recruiters generally don't always give out negative results to candidates, let alone specific reason(s). I don't think anyone can control how recruiters conduct their searches, and how one is chosen over other seemingly hopeful applicants. When asked, recruiters usually just say something like the company hired the best fit for the position, or we found someone with more qualifications. What can you do at that point? It isn't a quantitated measure to argue with the recruiters. I just think it's best to assume they look at everything available. Those who don't like the aftermath of negative results should try to control what is controllable beforehand. Recruiters have their choices, so do candidates.

Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is out there and available to anyone to review and analyze: potential employer; bank; lender; lawyer; current employer;etc. So look at your social media sites like someone checking you out. Don't put anything on there that would have a negative influence. So if you are in a position where such data might be important to others, "salt the mine" and add information that would impress someone that might be checking you out. Playing the game both ways is liget!

Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is out there and available to anyone to review and analyze: potential employer; bank; lender; lawyer; current employer;etc. So look at your social media sites like someone checking you out. Don't put anything on there that would have a negative influence. So if you are in a position where such data might be important to others, "salt the mine" and add information that would impress someone that might be checking you out. Playing the game both ways is liget!

You said it best, Bill. The tools are there, free of charge. Use them to your advantage, carefully and safely.

Absolutely so.

Many job application forms, including local police recruitment forms request links for social networking sites such as facebook.

If you're unable to manage your social life and social image, how can you manage your career? It's in the employers' best interest to gather as much knowledge about their potential employee as possible. Social networking sites such as facebook provide great insight to a person's life, especially if they use it actively

So, it's in YOUR best interest to carry yourself appropriately both in the interview and in your social life.

Ethical and professional policy should govern HR or any administrative organization's use of information sources in the context of commercial work. Clearly, information provided allowed by an individual on LinkedIn is different from Facebook or MySpace because of the framed purpose of these sites. Their context are different!!

For instance, would it be OK for HR or its representatives to engage in the following equivalent actions?
(1) Frequent a candidate's social club or favorite bar to observe his/her behavior among his friends and relatives on his private time (unbeknownst to him/her).
(2) Canvas and interview neighbors in a candidates neighborhood to gain more insight into his life and demeanor.

Clearly, our current standards would deem these two scenarios completely unacceptable.

I can’t agree more with what Kamili Talley said. I have a nephew that is extremely bright and very likeable. However, if you read some of his posts from last year, you’d think he was an angry young man that you should stay away from. In actuality, he was mad because he lost his university scholarship due to budgetary cuts and had to return home. Truthfully, I was worried about how some of his rantings might influence his future opportunities. He used FB to vent to his friends and family. However, he received a lot of feedback that helped him get back on track. One year later, he ‘earned’ an internship in the field he is passionate about and is doing very well in a local state university.

My point is that a person’s online diary should not define who they might be as an employee or even a human being. In our business, we do not use social media during the hiring process nor do we intend to do so in the future. Think about it -- would you want YOUR entire career defined by some idiotic statement(s) you made when YOU were 20 years old?

I'm not going to preach about why it's wrong because employers are already doing it everywhere, even when they have formal policies against it. HR staff, hiring managers and others are looking at candidate profiles and making judgements about them based on what they see. Right or wrong it is going on everywhere.

As others have pointed out, employers need to realize that if using Facebook is not brought under control they will face lawsuits.

If for example I apply for a job and do not get the position, and learn that someone at that employer was checking me out on Facebook how am I to know that not getting hired was or was not based on my political, religious, age, sex, orientation, or race?

I would guess employment lawyers are chomping at the bit for this to take off. Every time an employer chooses not to hire and if anyone at that company checked out a person on FB they will be open to lawsuits.

Its best just to not do it, and make sure it's clear to hiring managers and HR staff that they may be liable for lawsuits on a personal level as well.Its

Having hired hundreds of people over the years I can tell you most companies are looking much closer today at social issues. Columbine was a real awaking, and schools and others are paying much closer attention to predictive factors. Pink hair, tattoos, and piercings may be the "in" thing, but they will crate a negative response from many employers. I'm afraid parents as positive role models is getting lost in the shuffle.

Believe me, if some problem would occur, maybe just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, the authorities would be looking at a Facebook site and making assumptions. My advice to you nephew is to start a new social site.

I am looking for consistently negative status or grammar errors. Anyone can get help with a resume and fool the recruiter.

Facebook may not be a good indicator at all of a candidate’s skills and abilities, but it seems reasonable to expect that recruiters are looking there. It is very easy information to obtain, and that makes it attractive, but it is also very easy to overemphasize its importance. For that matter, do credit scores really predict someone's success? A resume submitted on something other than white or ivory paper? Straight into the trash! A few quick points to consider:

* Did a candidate ever anticipate that something they posted years ago would be scrutinized during a career search? If someone posted a comment 10 years such as "I do not like Monday mornings", does that mean they are not dependable and unmotivated?
* What does it mean if someone was in a college fraternity or sorority; that they were involved and outgoing, or that they did not take schoolwork very seriously and just wanted to socialize?
* What does a friend's post on Facebook indicate about someone?
* What does affiliation in a particular group say? (Does a candidate’s political party affiliation or other membership align with the employer's values or mission statement?)
* Can an employer pass over a candidate who graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League school, and they post that they are looking forward to their 25 year reunion, because that person is considered "too old?"

Slippery slope indeed. Yes, recruiters, prospective employers, and others are likely to look at Facebook. But they should not read too much into it, or use it as a tool to screen out "undesirable" candidates.

While I don't think Facebook should ever be a primary decision vehicle, people can't have it both ways.People feel like they should be able to "express themselves" without reservation or boundaries, but then not have that information taken into consideration. Grow up!

I hire whole people. If someone's social media presence demonstrates poor personal judgment why would I assume they have good professional judgment?

There are numerous ways to "protect" your presence on FB- managing your "friends" using private messaging versus your status or wall to post embarassing pictures or annecdotes, etc.
Professionals understand the boundaries of the law and judgment in the hiring process. I vett candidates pretty thoroughly before I hire them. That means a comprehensive look at them and how they fit in my organization or a clients.
Do I/Would I use FB as a major contributor to that assessment no, might I look to see if you pass the stupid test, yes.

The stupid test is people who put things out there accessible to the world displaying incredibly poor judgement and then whining that it is used against them...

One suggestion - in your organizational policy and on your employment application, have a statement that social networking sites may be used in consideration of an employment offer. That way, at least they can't say (in court) that they didn't know. Also, don't do it for applicants, just for those you consider viable candidates and then do it for ALL of the candidates, or at least for all of those you interview if you feel you must do it at all.

In my opinion, the decision to hire or not hire should pretty much be made before relying on Facebook for insight. Should someone be penalized because a friend, acquaintance or family member posts an inappropriate picture or comment on someone's FB page? The potential for discrimination, which someone raised previously, an excellent point with which I agree. Facebook is just a social networking site, a phenomenon of our narcissistic times. There is nothing particularly cerebral about it, nor does it bear any relevance to one's ability to perform a particular job or his or her moral character. Employers, who rely too much on Facebook to make hiring decisions, are probably not particularly good at making personnel decisions in the first place.

Agree. However, I think a LinkedIn profile provides far more information and more directly related information than Facebook.

I would think of Facebook as just another tool in the kit and would absolutely expect recruiters or HR professionals to find whatever is out there as they considered me for a position. It may not be fair, but "anything you say (or post) can and will be used against you." That's what I tell interns and my own kids.

Sure, it couldn't hurt to take a look at a candidate's Facebook profile. Should it be the deciding factor in whether to hire somebody? That can be a slippery slope.

On the candidate side, there are many privacy options that you can select so that a recruiter can't see your full profile. So all you have to do is put a professional picture on and nobody can see anything unless they add you as a friend (besides your name and your profile picture).

I think there is some value to be gained by reviewing one's Facebook profile, as the content on the profile can shed some light on one's character. However, I think employers should use Facebook profile content with caution for a number of reasons. For one, it does not allow for an even playing field for all candidates that are interviewing for the position. Suppose you have two candidates applying for the job, and both are viewed as well qualified. One candidate has a Facebook profile that speaks very highly and positively of the person's life, experiences, etc. etc., whereas the other candidate does not have a Facebook profile for whatever reason. The candidate that does not have a Facebook profile might very well have an equally, if not relatively better, background if they were to have a Facebook profile. Using Facebook content as a determining factor in this case might be robbing the company of someone very valuable because of a decision made on information (that being Facebook profile content) that both candidates did not have. In a situation like this, Facebook does not add much value to the selection process. On the flip side, if one of the two candidate's had a profile that contained inappropriate/questionable content on it, then the question becomes, how does this impact the person's ability to perform the job that he/she is interviewing for? This same question should apply even if the Facebook profile is relatively positive and appropriate. How does it impact the person's ability to perform the essential functions of the job? If the candidate is interviewing for a senior management role, then I would answer that the Facebook content might have much to do with the person's credibility, integrity and ability to exercise sound judgment. Same for someone who is being considered for a public relations position. On the other hand, if the candidate is interviewing for, let's say a file clerk, then if Facebook is going to be used as criteria then does the bar for Facebook content really need to be as high as the bar set for senior level management candidates? Viewing the matter from a different perspective, if the employer is challenged by a 3rd party for alleged discrimination in hiring, then the burden is going to likely shift to the employer to demonstrate that it used valid and reliable job related selection criteria. It might be difficult to consider Facebook profile content valid and reliable job related selection criteria in every hiring situation.

Apparently someone else asked the same question, from the candidate's view.

"Identified Is a New Professional Search Service that Uses Facebook to Connect You with Recruiters" http://lifehacker.com/5842029/identified-is-a-new-professional-search-service...

I think that if such a service exists, it means candidates are aware recruiters can look at their FB profile. So, I agree

Facebook is a window into the private/personal space, even if that information is publicly available via the internet. It should therefore *NOT* be used in a job reference, etc..

If someone wants to go out at a weekend, get totally drunk to the point of being unable to walk, but still walks into work Monday at 9AM smartly dressed and able to do their job, then who cares?

The only time work should care what an individual does at the weekend is when it starts adversely affecting safety of the workplace or their ability to perform a job. Beyond that, it is frankly none of the corporations business. The corporation does not own that persons life.

Political correctness may be required at work, but it doesn't apply in private.

Whoever thinks someone should act privately the way they act at work are the ones who need questioning as to their behavior. Just because "you" as an employer do not like getting totally drunk at the weekend, cross-dressing or anything else rather controversial (but legal) does not give you the right to stop others. To deny peoples rights to a private life (whether they broadcast it to the world afterwards or not) is nothing short of oppression.

I for one would defend freedom to the death. If it stopped me getting a job, so be it.

I dunno Robin - I think there are other areas that may cause alarm to a potential employer – what if someone belonged to some anti-social group (not going to name any and offend anyone). There’s the potential that what someone does outside the office would carry over to the inside of the office (including drinking). Key word there – COULD. Gangs, racists organizations and groups with violent relationships with others and/or law enforcement are things I’d appreciate knowing about should someone offer it up on the free WWW. If they are proud to announce it, I’d be a fool not to listen to it if it could impact me someday. I’d want to limit my exposure and liability and that of my company. I don’t think having a party on a Saturday night and acting a fool is the worst evil that could be broadcast.

Let me take this a step further: how would you feel if your potential employer followed you around town, stood on the street outside your home, etc.. to see what you are like, who you hang with, etc. in your personal time prior to employing you? After all, if you are outside your house, or out in town partying at a club, you are in public, so it is legal? Last time I checked, that kind of behavior was actually considered harassment/stalking.

Digging into Facebook or anywhere else where a person is just "hanging out" online in their free time, should also be considered harassment/stalking.

Let's go even further: if you (as the employer) discovered your potential future employee used public chat rooms, would it be acceptable to sit in the room to just watch what they post? Again, it is public, therefore not private, but it is definitely looking like stalking behavior.

My point is this: because something like Facebook is static, and does not require the presence of the person to function, does this mean it shouldn't be considered stalking/harassment and instead be accepted behavior? Absolutely not!

I believe the UK has laws that directly (key word) apply to anti-social behavior but in the US we don’t (that I know of) so being generally anti-social is not against the law here. In the US it’s considered anti-social to spray graffiti, file a false report, blow off fireworks in some cities and counties, yell FIRE in a theater – stuff like that, but not against the law for being anti-social yet against the law for other reasons. The net defines it as unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way – so anti-social would be someone not opposed to hostile, unfriendly, menacing environment. I’d want to know that prior to hiring someone, myself.

Yes, but just as any basic investigation into personal should include internet data, especially that which the person themselves maintains in their facebook profile.

It should be used as a tool to understand the individual since many of the postings are candid and are signs of how that individual feels/thinks.

While it would be prudent to view a person's Facebook profile, the fact that some one doesn't have a profile shouldn't be a job killer as you state, but if you are looking for some one who is engaged, especially in the tech space, then that could be a weight factor in that person's favor.

I disagree. Recruiters should not look at candidates' Facebook profiles when hiring
because, in my opinion, all information posted on facebook is not true and correct.

For security reasons, guarded people do no expose themselves in public settings.
They share information about themselves what they want the public to know and
that is it. Nothing else.

I do not know of Facebook to be a trusted website. People share what they want to
share and most of it is hyped to make it "juicy and attractive!"

I haven't ever done this but I do see why employers would do it. However monitoring social media is one habit I would recommend for businesses. It can help with product development, customer relations etc. Check out this guide '10 Tips on Monitoring Social Media'. Hope this has helped.

http://www.siliconcloud.com/10-tips-on-monitoring-social-media/

It is really is a little odd that we are so very concerned about the privacy of the individual posting on FB, and yet, the information is out on the international, worldwide internet! There are choices for privacy which would disallow a recruiter/potential employer from viewing the person with a drink in his/her hand, or the use of questionable language.

It appears we are busily protecting people from themselves.