There’s been a lot written lately on how employers and recruiters are doing all they can to dig up dirt on employees and job seekers, but in reality not every manager is putting on their Sherlock Holmes hat.
Yes, it’s disturbing to hear that some hiring managers are asking for Facebook passwords from job candidates; and there’s nothing worse than employers who dig into the credit histories of job applicants. Criminal background checks are also a thorn in the side of many workers, especially those who get nixed for a job even though they may have never been convicted of a crime.
But in reality, Big Brother has not taken over the workplace.
A recent study by EmployeeScreenIQ, a worker screening provider, found that many companies are not rushing to the web or any place else to look you up.
It turns out, “employers are split regarding their use of social networking websites as part of the background screening process. 48 percent of respondents consult these sites as part of their screening process (only 9% say they always consult this sites), while 52 percent say they never do,” according to the study. “Despite the potential they might hold, social networking websites are not yet widely accepted as trusted background-checking resource.”
Workers aren’t out of the woods yet, however. The researchers also said, “We anticipate that the trend of those who utilize these sites as a screening tool will only increase in the coming years.”
For now, it’s time to take a deep breath and realize not every job will hinge on your past; well other than your actual work experience.
Here are some other interesting findings from the EmployeeScreenIQ analysis:
Prevalence of Criminal Records: 68% of respondents estimate that 10 percent or less of their job candidates have criminal records. This finding diverges significantly from EmployeeScreenIQ’s 13-year experience working with employers across the globe, who collectively averaged a 23 percent criminal conviction rate in 2011. We believe this discrepancy is largely a result of a misperception on the part of employers about the screening methods and depth of information offered by their screening providers.Qualifications vs. Criminal Records: 72 percent of respondents say that qualifications are more important than a criminal record. In fact, this sentiment is borne out in a number of areas within the survey results, including participants’ comments.
Criminal Records’ Impact On Hiring: Candidates are not hired because of their criminal records less than 10 percent of the time, according to 70 percent of respondents. Again, this supports employers’ claims that an applicant’s qualifications, references and interviewing skills are ultimately more important than a criminal history.Distorting Resume Information: A vast majority of respondents estimate that up to 40 percent of candidates distort or exaggerate information on their resumes. 83% of respondents say that fabricating educational qualifications is the most egregious resume distortion.
Division Over Online Universities: Employers are divided on the legitimacy of online universities. 45 percent believe that online universities are less credible than brick-and-mortar universities, while 55 percent do not. For employers who are ambivalent about this issue, the next few years will likely help them clarify their positions, as more and more trusted, brick-and-mortar schools are expected to add online programs.
March 21st, 2012 at 9:26 am
What I wonder is if the hiring managers aren’t missing the golden age of Facebook profiling. A year or two from now, when everyone expects it, perhaps people will put false but flattering pictures on their web page. For example, if I’m applying for a job at GE or another weapons contractor, I photoshop a picture of myself meeting with David Petreaus and make it my photo.
Or I put schools and degrees I don’t have in my profile. Unlike a resume, I’m not attesting to the information on penalty of dismissal and if the hiring managers choose to snoop on my page, well, that’s their issue.
Facebook is a free service so it probably isn’t so hard to set up a parallell, fake, presence on the site with an extra e-mail and fill it with employer-friendly information. When you’re asked for the password, you give that one instead of your normal account. How hard is that?
Once that happens a few times, the value of snooping goes away. What we don’t need is the government stepping in with rules about what employers can and can’t do when hiring employees. If hiring managers have found that felony convictions or bad credit histories are good predictors of inferior employees, why shouldn’t they use them? If they’re wrong, they are only hurting themselves by screening out otherwise valuable employees.
March 21st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I like the way you think Sean.
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:18 pm
I wouldn’t be afraid for a prospective employer to see my Facebook page, my photos or any other information I have on that site. I currently have a mix of friends, family, persons under 18, colleagues and clients as “friends” that can see everything I care to share. Facebook is not private, no matter what people think.
I think any potential employer (and current client) who sees my info sees a well rounded person with a stable family, someone who is active and fit, who cares about others, someone who is positive and happy, professional and down to Earth.
However, if a potential employer asked for my password, the answer would not only be NO, it would be a “I don’t think we are a good fit” rejection of their company. There is nothing on my Facebook profile, wall or pictures that a “friend” can’t see. I’d be happy to “friend” a potential employer so he/she could snoop around all they want, but I will not turn over my password.
To me that is the difference in someone running a credit report and then asking for the password to your bank accounts.