The hiring process is not fun on either side. On hiring committees, opinions often clash. Feelings get hurt when there is talk of degree superiority. Gloom descends on the department when offers are turned down.
We all know the long list of forbidden interview topics. You don't want to gain information that might lead to discrimination.
But what about google?
Is it kosher to google a candidate to check the CV? What about if you stumble on their blog? Or a twitter feed?
If you look them up on Facebook and see that their profile picture is from their wedding, is it now common knowledge that they are married?
In this age of too much information, where is the line in the hiring process?
13 comments:
i think it is fine to google a candidate. they *should* be smart enough & savvy enough not to put anything online that they don't want their employers/ potential employers to see.
I think, in the digital era, most people going through the hiring process recognize the possibility that an employer might google them. This post on the Science Careers blog highlights a recent report on this question. One thing that surprised me was that inappropriate comments by your family, friends, or co-workers could negatively impact the hiring decision; this was further up the list than discovering a person had falsified information on his/her CV.
I think hiring committees (and individuals on them) should consider why they're googling candidates. Is it to confirm info on the CV? How much are you looking for that could not be found on the CV or by contacting references? Are you trying to ferret out information that you legally cannot ask that person during the hiring process (like are you married, do you have kids, etc.)? I would say that if you're getting into that last question, then you're crossing the line.
One final note: The internet is forever. Individuals must be aware that it is difficult, if not impossible, to completely erase something once it hits cyberspace. But should a hiring committee decide to google someone, they should consider how recent info or an incident really is and that it might not provide an accurate reflection of the person now.
I think that you should be aware that people do google people. And as a person looking to get hired, you should be aware that your stuff might get googled.
(One of the reasons I am happy not to have a blog that shows up at google with my name...)
I might not think that you should take into account what you find googling people, then again - I do think you should be able to explain if something comes up in a quick search.
Howeer, it is hard with "knowing" and "telling"....
It depends partially how you use the information. The science careers thing indicated that the number one type of internet info that resulted in employers removing a job candidate from consideration was "concerns about lifestyle". Seriously, WTF is that? Are we so terribly afraid of working with people with a different lifestyle? What constitutes a "concerning lifestyle"? Someone who spends too much/too little time at work? Someone who spends too much/too little time at the bar? Someone who spends too much/too little time at church? Someone who has an alternative family structure?
It strikes me as a very unwise thing to judge someone on.
I don't mind being googled, I don't have anything to hide, really (assuming anyone googling me isn't clueless enough to mistake me for the hairstylist from sex in the city by the same name). Googling can be a valuable tool to find assets that are less than obvious from a CV, or points of common ground to facilitate a connection. It's even great to use it just to make smalltalk more pleasant. But it seems just... weird? (irrational? petty?) to use it for finding reasons to not consider someone.
The line is drawn by the legal requirements your HR program places on the actions that can or must be taken by you in your professional duties, which vary significantly depending on where you work and whether you are on a "selection" committee (ranking candidates with a clear expectation that #1 will be hired if possible), a "search" committee (unranked list of all candidates that could be hired), or the person with final hiring authority who is charged to do background checks. But it starts with the law and other regulations that apply to your college.
The article linked above is mostly about corporations, and certainly does not apply to what a search committee can do at my public college. The answers might be quite different at a private college AFAIK.
If we (meaning a search committee) wanted to look at a candidate's on-line presence, we would have to make that part of our list of pre-approved questions and apply it equally to all candidates. We aren't supposed to consider anything outside of the formal and informal contact periods during our deliberations. This can be annoying, but if (for instance) you already know or have heard about a person's teaching skills or weaknesses, those can be probed during the teaching presentation.
The Dean and President can do more, because they have a fiduciary responsibility to check transcripts and references.
Most people I know understand that there is the possibility their name will be googled, if nothing more than to put a face with a name, or to find out a few interests before a visit. Sometimes this leads to unfortunate revelations, such as an open myspace profile with the person of interest doing less than legal things in pictures, other times it's just a curiosity.
I think there is a fine line about what is appropriate to consider and what should never be brought up but I also know it is the responsibility of the person being googled to keep their information as private as possible and to not send things into the cyber world that they do not want found out.
I recently had a former coworker and facebook friend take pictures from my profile and add an article about me to the department newsletter... without my permission (which was asked for, and turned down). I know better now and have omitted this person from seeing ANY of my posted pictures and keep EVERYTHING from my real life marked private (and I'm not stupid enough to post anything a potential employer would find offensive).
For me the gray area comes to differences in lifestyle choices. I have no doubt that if one of my previous employers found out I was an atheist, I would not have been hired. I have friends who think their sexual preference might hurt them in an interview, so they leave those questions blank.
As Doc Pion rightly points out, the article I linked to was based on a survey of companies--but I was surprised by some of the things they take into consideration.
What's unclear is how a dept/univ can enforce whether a committee member has looked into the candidate's online presence and how it influences his/her decision. Even if you could not use it directly, I imagine certain aspects could be explored during the interview process, just as with the example of rumored teaching weaknesses.
It seems like googling candidates would be normal, and kind of like asking a friend if they know the person, say, if they were at the same institution or whatever. It seems natural to be curious, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that the information is common knowledge then either.
I know I googled myself as soon as I hit the job market, just to see what came up, because I kind of assumed that would happen.
And if you have a name shared by ten thousand others? Google may reveal the Joe Blow who is not you, who did that horrible thing reported in the Daily Sun last year. So Google if you must, but take the data with a lot of salt.
Our U was just hiring and I heard of a lot of instances where a faculty member new of someone's marriage status from knowing a shared 3rd party affiliate at another school, but didn't share that info w/ other faculty. I'm sure there is a lot of that out there too, so regardless of you may learn of something I guess it is what you do with it that counts.
"stumble" lol. Most people seek these out intentionally.
I recently caught my boss googling a potential student to check that they were in their twenties and not an "old" mature student!
The truth is you gotta wise up.
I am not ashamed of what I look like, and I am not ashamed of my political view. However, much as a person strives to be accepting, they are going to bias in favor of someone who thinks like them.
Political and religious views are best kept out of the work place. They are certainly not views I want potential employees to be paying attention too.
I am highly protective of my "professional" identity.
It is totally ok to google a candidate and everyone should take precautions and responsibility over what they have put about their personal lives online (which is why I don't understand colleagues of mine who ask to be my facebook friends and then tag themselves during their friday evening booze binges).
Isn't this also why most of our blogs are anonymous?
Candidates should use this to their advantage and have impeccable websites and uptodate CVs.
Having said that, any personal information you do find should never be used as prejudice (for example, people don't usually know from my first name if I am Mrs. or Mr. or what my ethnic background is and can't guess my age from my CV - googling my name they will find out).
Regarding the question of the candidate wedding - surely that should never come into account when assessing a candidate?
Post a Comment